Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Rabbit Traps (Committee)

Captain Kerby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether during the interim period before he makes the gin trap illegal, he will give wide publicity to the Caldra system of rabbit netting, and other humane systems of trapping; and when he expects to receive the first report of the committee set up to speed up the adoption of humane traps.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Sir Thomas Dugdale): My Department is already bringing this and other humane methods of catching rabbits to the notice of farmers. As regards the second part of the Question, the work of the proposed committee will largely depend on trials of new and improved traps in the field, which cannot begin until the autumn. An early report cannot therefore be expected.

Captain Kerby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these interminable delays in adopting a humane trap and banning the gin trap are causing widespread distress throughout the country?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not accept the view that there are delays.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the Minister say whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to try to eliminate rabbits, and, if so, whether he will agree that no policy of trapping is likely to achieve that end, and that the only hope is to have an all-out drive on a national scale, with gassing and all other suitable means, during the period of grace which myxomatosis may give us, when the

rabbit population will be down to a minimum?

Sir T. Dugdale: It is very much the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do all they can to eliminate rabbits, but every method must be tried and used. I do not think that the matter can be dealt with by Question and answer, but trapping, gassing and every other means must be tried to reduce the menace.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this case at least those who have been in close touch with him regarding his efforts to abolish the gin trap are greatly encouraged by the drive which he is showing in the matter?

Mr. Philips Price: Is the Minister aware that there are places in which it is difficult or impossible to use other methods than the gin trap, such as rocky country and country where gas cannot be used owing to the lightness of the soil? In such places there is just no other way.

Sir T. Dugdale: I agree with the hon. Member. That is just one of the difficulties.

Mr. Hargreaves: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will give the membership of the committee to advise him on speeding up the development of suitable humane traps so that the use of gin traps may be prohibited; and whether the committee has yet begun its work.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am glad to be able to inform the House that Mr. Roland Dudley has agreed to accept the Chairmanship of the Committee, and I hope to announce the names of the other members before very long.

Mr. Hargreaves: Has not the Minister been made aware of the widespread feeling that to set a date four years ahead for this prohibition, with power to postpone the date still further, suggests that there is no drive behind the attempt to prohibit the use of these traps?

Sir T. Dugdale: I think the House will realise that there is here a great problem, as was indicated by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) and other hon. Members. I have done my best to meet all the views on the subject, and, as I hope the House will realise, I am determined to make progress with it.

Requisitioned Land (Disposal)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many properties or estates of any description are still held under requisition by his Department; if he will order a new investigation into the circumstances of all these cases; and if he will direct that the interests of the original owner, or owners, shall receive prior consideration whenever a sale is contemplated.

Sir T. Dugdale: Some 23,900 acres of land are still held under requisition by my Department, most of it either common land or plot land held in a multiplicity of ownerships, many of the owners being unknown. About 10,000 acres of this land are being bought under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, in order to maintain the land in efficient agricultural use. The remaining 13,900 acres are under continual review and a large part of the acreage will be released to the owners this autumn. I have no powers to sell land held on requisition, and the latter part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Gower: Will the Minister kindly address himself to the second part of the Question, about the possibility of a new investigation into the circumstances of all these cases? Will he bear in mind that, while most of us in this country still believe that we have the finest Civil Service in the world, nevertheless people have been deeply shocked by the recent case? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, seriously consider this suggestion? Can he tell the House whether any progress has been made in derequisitioning?

Sir T. Dugdale: There is so much misunderstanding about derequisitioning that it may interest the House to know that the requisitioned area has been reduced from 61,030 acres in April, 1951, to the figure I have given of 23,900 acres at the present time.

Sir W. Smithers: When every kind of inquiry is being held under the 1947 Act, will my right hon. Friend not have them in an open court, where the public can be admitted, under the chairmanship of an independent Q.C., and with evidence taken on oath. That is what we want—to get rid of all this dictatorship of the Civil Service.

Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different Question.

Service Department Land (Transfers)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land acquired by purchase or rented for war purposes by Service Departments have since been transferred to the Land Commission or Commissioners of Crown Lands.

Sir T. Dugdale: At 31st March, this year, about 26,300 acres of such land were under the control of the Agricultural Land Commission and 964 acres have been acquired by the Commissioners of Crown Lands.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend contemplate any increase in the amount of land to be purchased by the Commissioners of Crown Lands?

Sir T. Dugdale: The Commissioners of Crown Lands are ready buyers and ready sellers. There is no question at all of any influence one way or the other upon them by this House or anybody else.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what circumstances are necessary to decide that land held by Service Departments should be transferred to the Land Commissioner or Commissioners of Crown Lands instead of being sold to previous owners or submitted to public auction.

Sir T. Dugdale: My hon. Friend may be under a misapprehension about the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Commissioners are willing to consider the purchase of suitable properties, but there is no question of the transfer without purchase to them of land held by Service Departments. On the matter of policy I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement I shall be making in the forthcoming debate.

Agricultural Land Commission (Functions)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress, in accord with Government policy, the Agricultural Land Commission is making in selling or letting properties acquired for the purpose of putting them in order for a proper standard of farming.

Sir T. Dugdale: The functions of the Agricultural Land Commission do not include the buying and selling of land. Except for five properties which are being farmed by the Commission them


selves, all the properties placed under their management by me or my predecessor are let either on annual tenancies or on licences.

Mr. Hurd: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Agricultural Land Commission is now well aware of the Government's policy that, as soon as a property has been put in good order for a high standard of farming, the Commission should let it rather than continue to farm it itself?

Sir T. Dugdale: Perhaps my hon. Friend means "sell it." The Commission has no power to sell. I am myself looking into that aspect of the matter very carefully.

Mr. T. Williams: Has it not always been the case that when the Government have taken over an area of land to restore it to cultivation, after it has been restored to real cultivable possibilities it has been rented at once?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is exactly the state of affairs.

Flavour of Potatoes (Fertilisers and Insecticides)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture what research has been made into the effect of chemical fertilisers and insecticides on the flavour of potatoes.

Sir T. Dugdale: Tests have been carried out at the Rothamsted Experimental Station into the effect of chemical fertilisers on the cooking quality and flavour of potatoes. Research has also been carried out by leading firms into the effect of certain soil insecticides on the flavour of potatoes, and the need for additional work is being considered.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is not evidence piling up that, with the increasing use of chemicals for all kinds of agricultural purposes, vegetables do not taste as good as they used to taste? Does the Minister agree with the National Federation of Fish Fryers who pointed out at a recent conference that fried fish and mothballs are a most unpalatable combination?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is why inquiries are being initiated under the auspices of the Agricultural Improvement Council into the tainting of vegetables generally. It may interest the House to know that there is no evidence of any danger to

human health resulting from the normal application of fertilisers

Mr. Bullard: Will my hon. Friend inquire into the possibility that the smell of mothballs, which is complained of may come from the fish rather than the potatoes? If it prove to be the case that both Fisheries and Agriculture are implicated, may not there then be a strong presumption that there are moths in the Ministry?

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the suppliers and consumers of fish and chips by reason of the fact that chips made from potatoes from land treated with chemicals for pest destruction tend to taste and smell of mothballs; and to what extent remedial action by means of research or otherwise is contemplated by his Department.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am aware of complaints of taint in potatoes. The Agricultural Improvement Council has recently appointed a sub-committee to consider the question of tainting in vegetables, generally from the use of chemicals applied to the soil.

Mr. Janner: In view of the fact that a large number of people complained and that the National Federation of Fish Fryers considered this matter in consequence, would the Minister see that the matter is dealt with fairly speedily, especially as there are so many people who consume this kind of food?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, that is the reason why this sub-committee has been set up. It will advise me on the nature and extent of the problem and what action I can take by way of further research or in other ways.

Mr. K. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend say if any research has been carried out so far into the effects of the use of various fertilisers on unregistered "pairs"?

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Could not the right hon. Gentleman have given a more suitable reply in the monosyllable which will be found at the end of the two syllable word in the eighth line of the Question?

Mr. Erroll: Could not the public help in this matter by returning the smelly potatoes to their greengrocer for replacement?

Crichel Down Inquiry

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture what sum of rent has been paid by the tenant for the first six months at Crichel Down.

Sir T. Dugdale: £510 has been paid. This is half of £1,020 which is, under the agreement with the tenant, the rent for the first year.

Mr. Crouch: How long will this arrangement go on, and was this arrangement made with the tenant by Mr. Thompson? Was my right hon. Friend personally made aware of the fact that £2,000 rent was bid for the bare land, which was £100 less than the present tenant has agreed to pay after £34,000 has been spent on the property?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. Under the terms of the tenancy the tenant is to pay £1,020 for the first year and £2,150 thereafter. There is to be an abatement of the full rent to an amount to be agreed if the land is not equipped by Michaelmas, 1954, which it can now hardly be.

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish the evidence given at Sir Andrew Clark's inquiry into the disposal of land at Crichel Down.

Sir T. Dugdale: The transcript of evidence and the accompanying bundles of correspondence are bulky and I do not feel that publication of them would be justified. I am, however, arranging for sets of the documents to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Deedes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that, in view of the possible controversy which may arise between the evidence which was taken and the nature of the Report and between the Report and his own conclusions, it would be a good thing if the evidence were made more widely available?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will certainly consider that. The evidence was taken in public. There are 425 foolscap sheets of it, and the correspondence takes another 500 sheets, making about 1,000 in all. For the convenience of hon. Members, I propose to make three sets of the papers available in the Library. Perhaps that will be sufficient for the present.

Apprenticeship Scheme

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many entries for the agricultural apprenticeship scheme have been notified.

Sir T. Dugdale: There are 148 apprentices at work, and 295 young people are waiting to be interviewed or placed.

Mr. Wells: Does not this extremely disappointing figure indicate the reluctance of agricultural workers to put their children into an industry which is so badly paid and which lacks opportunities for advancement?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, Sir, I do not think so. This scheme has been running for only six months. I had the privilege of starting this scheme which, I hope, will be successful. It has been running for only six months, but a start has been made. Incidentally, Kent is one of the counties very interested in this scheme.

Wages Arrears (Prosecutions)

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of cases of underpayment of farm workers investigated by his inspectors during the 12 months ended 31st May this year; the amount recovered; and the number of prosecutions involved.

Sir T. Dugdale: During the 12 months ended 31st May last, 1,082 investigations into alleged infringements of the Agricultural Wages Act were carried out by my inspectors. £7,382 was recovered by way of arrears of wages. Prosecution was undertaken in 14 cases. In addition, 5,750 test inspections were made during this period resulting in the recovery of nearly £2,700. In three of these cases prosecution was instituted. All prosecutions were successful.

Mr. Wells: Is the Minister satisfied that he has a sufficient number of inspectors to undertake this work?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. It may interest the House to know that underpayment is found in about 27 per cent. of the cases investigated as a result of complaints, whereas a very much larger number of test cases revealed about 2 per cent., which proves that the whole thing is working satisfactorily.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Will the Minister explain the small number of prosecutions initiated in relation to the presumably large number of cases revealed?

Sir T. Dugdale: Yes, Sir. It is because in other cases when attention was drawn to them it was found that many were quite unintentional and that there was a settlement with the employers negotiated by the Ministry.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the proportion of prosecutions in the cases discovered much the same as under the Factory Acts and similar Acts?

Sir T. Dugdale: I could not answer that in replying to the Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if there would have been more prosecutions had there been more inspectors and if his inspectors are working overtime?

Sir T. Dugdale: I feel that the matter is working very well. The large number of test inspections reveal that in only 2 per cent. were the workers found to be underpaid, whereas 27 per cent. of the cases investigated following complaints were found to require attention.

Mr. Robens: Would not the Minister agree that if the workers joined their appropriate trade organisations the work of his inspectors would be considerably lessened?

Milk Production (Licences)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture what principles govern the tightening up now taking place of conditions under which licences are granted for milk production on farms; and what appeal his Regulations provide for farmers and smallholders who may be faced with heavy outlays or whose licences may be withdrawn.

Sir T. Dugdale: There has been no change in the regulations made in 1949, nor any tightening up. These regulations prohibited the use of the designation "accredited" after 30th September, 1954, and also provided that after that date no licence could be granted or renewed for the sale of T.T. milk except from an attested herd. The regulations provide for an appeal to an independent tribunal

against refusal or cancellation of registration or, where the farmers' retail business is in a specified area, the refusal, suspension or revocation of a T.T. licence.

Pig Breeding

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state what further steps are being taken by his Department for the progeny testing of boars and generally for the improvement of the type of pig most required for the bacon factories and the pork market.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am still unable to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 25th February and to paragraph 26 of the 1954 Annual Review White Paper on the subject of progeny testing. I expect, however, a start to be made in September with a scheme for the recording of pigs in England and Wales. Details will be announced very shortly.

Mr. Price: Will the Minister bear in mind that this is a very important matter if we are to reduce the cost of bacon imported into this country?

Sir T. Dugdale: I have that point in mind.

Hessary Tor Site (Television Station)

Mr. J. J. Astor: asked the Minister of Agriculture what objections to the use of the Hessary Tor site for a television station serving the Plymouth area have been lodged by persons claiming legal rights in the common land.

Sir T. Dugdale: So far no objections have been lodged to the application for my consent under Section 194 of the Law of Property Act, 1925. The statutory period for the lodging of objections does not expire until 24th July.

Mr. Astor: If the objection is lodged, would my right hon. Friend consider trying to speed up the lengthy procedure for considering such objection?

Sir T. Dugdale: I will do the best I can, but I am bound by statute.

Atrophic Rhinitis

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been any fresh outbreak of atrophic rhinitis among pigs during the last fortnight.

Sir T. Dugdale: No outbreak of atrophic rhinitis has been confirmed during the last fortnight.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided whether he is in favour of the spread of the disease or against it?

Hon. Members: Wrong Question.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am very much against the disease.

Myxomatosis

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been any further spread of the rabbit disease of myxomatosis during the last fortnight; and what is the most northerly outbreak reported up to date.

Sir T. Dugdale: During the past fortnight there has been some spread of the disease in the areas already affected and isolated outbreaks have been confirmed in wild rabbits in Devonshire, Cardiganshire, Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire and Lincolnshire (Lindsey). The most northerly outbreaks reported to date are in Anglesey and Lincolnshire (Lindsey).

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Minister be good enough now to answer the supplementary question which I put on Question No. 20?

Sir T. Dugdale: I stand exactly where I stood originally after I got the Report of the Committee which investigated the problem. We are against the artificial spread of the disease. What we have decided is that, where the disease is in existence, we cannot take measures to stamp it out. We are quite convinced of that at the present time. We have no positive evidence whatever of outbreaks having been started deliberately by individuals, as has been written in the Press.

Mr. Usborne: We understand that the Minister is against the spread of the disease. Would he tell the House whether he would wish to have the rabbit population completely exterminated if that were possible?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is going a very long way. I do not think we shall see the rabbit population of this country exterminated in our lifetime.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture to what extent the myxomatosis virus is proving effective in making a complete clearance of rabbits in districts where the disease has taken hold; and what evidence he has to show that this is a comparatively painless death as the rabbits quickly become comatose.

Sir T. Dugdale: In some areas where myxomatosis has taken hold the first wave of the disease appears to have eliminated over 90 per cent. of the wild rabbit population, but it is too early to say whether this high rate of mortality will continue. I have no way of estimating the degree of pain suffered by wild rabbits which are affected with myxomatosis but such rabbits are plainly in distress for a varying period before death.

Mr. Hurd: Has my right hon. Friend consulted the scientific authorities in Australia who seem, on the evidence available to them, to have made up their minds that this is quite a happy death for rabbits because the animals go completely comatose very quickly?

Sir T. Dugdale: That must be a matter of opinion. The only ones who could give us the answer are the rabbits, and they cannot tell us.

Mr. Philips Price: Is it not a fact that after a while a proportion of the rabbits become immune to the disease? Is not that what has happened in France?

Sir T. Dugdale: Again, that is the opinion of some people. In Australia, after the disease became rampant a certain proportion of the rabbits became immune, and they are starting up again. We are studying the whole problem all the time.

Mr. Paget: Is it not a fact that the disease involves the swelling of the eyes until they burst and the swelling of the genital organs until the orifice is closed? Is it seriously suggested that this is not infinitely more cruel than any gin trap ever invented?

Sir T. Dugdale: Again, that is a matter of opinion. I have no doubt at all that the disease must be painful

Calf Subsidies

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many calves have been approved for the £5 grant during the past


six months; and how many were rejected as being unlikely to make good beef beasts.

Sir T. Dugdale: During the six months ended 31st May this year, subsidy was paid in England and Wales on 496,322 calves, and 28,102 calves were rejected as not being likely to yield a carcase of reasonably good quality beef.

Potato Crop

Mr. Bullard: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the potato crop for the coming season will meet the requirements of the market.

Sir T. Dugdale: It is too early to estimate the yield of the potato crop.

Mr. Bullard: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there is every prospect of supplies being adequate, and, if so, can he say anything about the 20,000 tons of potatoes coming from the Argentine in exchange for motor lorries which we are to send there? Can he say who bought these potatoes, and when they are coming to this country?

Sir T. Dugdale: That is an entirely different question. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put it down on the Order Pa per?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN TRAWLERS (NETS)

Mr. G. R. Howard: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he takes to inspect the nets of foreign vessels fishing in British waters to ensure that they comply with the international convention as to size of mesh.

Sir T. Dugdale: Fishing by foreign vessels in British territorial waters is prohibited irrespective of the size of mesh used, but I presume my hon. Friend's concern is with the nets used by foreign vessels on the high seas. Under the International Fisheries Convention of 1946, each contracting Government is responsible for ensuring that the nets used by its own vessels are of a mesh of the prescribed minimum size. My Department's powers to inspect nets for the purposes of the Convention are limited to British ships.

Mr. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on 3rd May, certain foreign trawlers took refuge in our ports and not

only were they seen to have the wrong size of mesh on board, but it was openly admitted by some Belgian skippers at Brixham that they were using a 60 mm. mesh and intended doing so because the new size of mesh was no good? As our own fishermen have co-operated wholeheartedly in altering the size of their mesh, at considerable loss to themselves, would it not be a good thing if we did something to ensure that foreigners coming to our ports do the same?

Sir T. Dugdale: I would accept the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question at once, so far as our own fishermen are concerned. I had not heard of the instance about which he has informed the House. At the present time, the permanent commission set up under the Convention is ascertaining the views of the constituent governments on whether enforcement of the mesh provisions should be on an international basis. I should prefer to await the result of that inquiry before making a further statement.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the present Government would be willing for an international body, the Commission or some other body, to investigate our fishing vessels?

Sir T. Dugdale: It would depend on how it was done. I should first like to see what the permanent commission recommends.

Mr. Champion: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Government concerned the statement which has been made by his hon. Friend?

Sir T. Dugdale: I should have to examine the statement first.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Hydrogen Bomb

Mr. Edelman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a new manual of Civil Defence for the guidance of Civil Defence workers, taking into account the necessary precautions against atomic and hydrogen bomb attack.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether


he will publish a volume of training for Civil Defence dealing with precautionary schemes of defence against the use of the hydrogen bomb.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I would refer the hon. Members to paragraph 5 (v) of the statement which I made in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. East (Mr. Ian Harvey) on 27th May.

Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Home Office memorandum to the Select Committee on Civil Defence stated that 20 inches of concrete are required to prevent the lethal effects of gamma radiation following an atomic explosion? Is he aware that that is not stated in the existing Civil Defence manuals, and will he not endeavour to put an end to the present sham of Civil Defence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not accept for a moment the implication of the hon. Gentleman's last sentence, and I am sorry he mentioned it. The manuals are being revised and the syllabuses adjusted to meet present conditions.

Mr. Willey: Would not the Minister agree that the most up-to-date information and instructions are necessary in order that information should be afforded on protection to help in Civil Defence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I entirely agree, and I am pushing on as hard as I can to get the manuals revised and the syllabuses adjusted.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when the new manual will be ready?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, I cannot say that. A full-scale review is going on, and it is difficult to give a date when it will be finished.

Mr. Edelman: Will the Minister deal with certain contradictions in the statement put out by the Home Office? For instance, on the question of gamma radiation, he himself made one statement in this controversy with the Coventry City Council. It was stated that, had the fishermen remained below deck, they would have escaped the effects of gamma radiation, whereas, in this particular memorandum, it is said that 20 inches of

concrete were necessary as a safeguard against such radiation. Is not that an absolute contradiction, and will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman do something to try to harmonise these various statements?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not accept that there is a contradiction, because the circumstances are so entirely different. On the other hand, I will certainly with great pleasure go into any points which the hon. Member likes to bring to my attention.

Training Pamphlets

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what volumes of the Manual of Basic Training for Civil Defence have been published; what was the date of the last volume published; and how many volumes he proposes to publish.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Two volumes of the Manual of Basic Training for Civil Defence have been published. Volume I, which deals with the organisation, general training and war duties of the Civil Defence Corps comprises nine pamphlets, and Volume II, which includes technical information, comprises seven pamphlets. The date of the last pamphlet published is 22nd April, 1954. No new pamphlets are at present contemplated in this series, but the existing ones will be revised as necessary.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman treat this problem in the same light as the other one, because we all realise the vital importance of the Civil Defence service and the importance of keeping absolutely up to date in methods of protection?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I entirely agree with that.

Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent he issues directives to Civil Defence organisations in Scotland.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is there no co-ordination between Civil Defence in England and in Scotland? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that, if there is no co-ordination, he himself wants some?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is, in Scotland, the designated Minister for all Civil Defence purposes, apart from those for which my colleagues the Ministers of Food, Fuel and Power and Transport are the designated Ministers. My own responsibility in my native land is that I am responsible for three Civil Defence training schools, one of which, Taymouth Castle, is in Scotland, but I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that Scottish students are given first call on places at that school.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Affiliation Orders

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of affiliation orders issued during the last three years for which figures are available.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The number of affiliation orders made at magistrates' courts in England and Wales in the years 1951, 1952 and 1953 was as follows:—1951–3,944; 1952–4,072; 1953–3,979.

Dr. Joseph Cort (United Kingdom Residence)

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant political asylum to Dr. Joseph Cort.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will grant political asylum to Dr. Joseph Cort, a United States citizen, who is threatened with punishment and loss of citizenship for political opinions if he returns to the United States of America.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and other hon. Members on 24th June.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that that answer bitterly disappointed all those who believe that political asylum is one of the precious traditions of British life? Is he aware that no criticism of a foreign Power, or no support of a man's political opinions, is involved in political asylum when asylum is granted; and is he also

aware that, if his interpretation of political asylum had prevailed at the time, neither Victor Hugo nor Emile Zola would have been allowed to come to Britain? Will he not reconsider the whole position?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would point out, with regard to political asylum, that what I stated to be the principle has not only been the principle acted upon in this country throughout the past years, but is enshrined in the latest Convention that deals with the subject; namely, that political asylum is given where the national of a country is in danger in regard to his life and liberty from political persecution, among other forms of persecution, in that country. That is the principle that has been applied and is applied and what I pointed out was that I have no grounds for believing that it was not applied in this case.

Mr. Ede: Why has the right hon. and learned Gentleman altered the phrase he used last week from "life or liberty" to "life and liberty"?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am sonny, I should have said that; I intended to say "life or liberty," I beg the right hark. Gentleman's pardon.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the Minister's very unhappy answer, may I ask him if he will not admit that this is a vital question of principle? Rightly or wrongly, Dr. Cort believes that, if he returns to the United States, he will be in danger of punishment and persecution for his political opinions. Is it not in accordance with the long tradition of political asylum in this country that asylum should be granted, that it should not be restricted to refugees from Iron Curtain countries but should be universal in its application? Is he not aware that there is an overwhelming feeling throughout the country that his decision was wrong and that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to ask a question, but it should be a question and not a speech.

Mr. Fletcher: Would not the Minister agree that, if there is any doubt in his mind at all, as there obviously is, his discretion should be exercised in favour of the individual?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On the first point which the hon. Gentleman posed in his question, the danger of imprisonment in which Dr. Cort is placed, as far as I know, is the danger of a sentence for an alleged delinquency, of which I am not the judge, under the Selective Service Acts of the United States. With regard to the second part of the question, there is no distinction between people from the Iron Curtain countries and anyone else. The law of asylum applies and is applied to every country, and every case is examined on its merits. With regard to my own decision, I am aware that people disagree with it, but, in administering what I think everyone will agree is a difficult matter, all I can do is to come to the decision which I think is right.

Mr. Benn: Are we to understand from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he repudiates his Under-Secretary, who, in a letter to me on 28th May, said that:
Except in the case of refugees whose homes are behind the Iron Curtain, the Home Secretary is not prepared to allow foreigners to settle here.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Further, would it not be better to be quite honest about this? [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to suggest that another hon. Member is being dishonest.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Benn: I maintain that I was referring to the point that it would be better if we were all honest about the matter. Would it not be better if we were more honest about it and recognised that men who are Communists or ex-Communists are persecuted in the United States, and that in his message to Congress in January, President Eisenhower asked for legislation to deprive Communists of citizenship?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary, let me say that the Under-Secretary of State was referring to what are the vast majority of cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Let me give my explanation. The vast majority of these cases are from behind the Iron Curtain, and the great majority of these were people who came in when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) held my office. He, very rightly and with the approval of the whole country, let in a

large number, many thousands, of people in order that we should do our share in helping with the refugee problem in Europe. A number of these people, whose national status was in great doubt, were allowed in, but I think that decision was generally approved at that time.
Since then the position has stabilised somewhat, and now it is the practice to apply it in each case. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary had in mind. I assure the House that it is applied perfectly generally and is open to the nationals of all countries.
With regard to the other point, the matter which I had to consider was that, through the alleged breach of the Selective Service Laws this gentleman might, in the case of conviction, have lost his nationality and therefore would not have been returnable under the administration of our aliens laws.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman no information that would lead him to believe that if this man returns to the United States he will not be dealt with for selective training but will be brought before Senator McCarthy's Committee?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My information is that what is desired is that he should go before the authority dealing with the Service Acts.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Watkins.

Mr. King: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply—[Interruption.] I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you had called the next Question.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I did. I called Mr. Watkins, but he is not here.

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what cases other than that of Dr. Joseph Cort he has refused to renew the permit of a resident alien on the ground that the country of his origin had threatened to deprive the alien of his citizenship.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member's Question is based on two misapprehensions. In the first place, Dr. Cort has been here on a purely temporary footing and not as a resident alien; in the second place, the risk of his losing his citizenship derives from his own refusal to comply with the law of his country and not


from any threat of executive action on the part of the United States Government. It is not possible to identify from the records the particular class of case which the hon. Member appears to have in mind, as it is the normal practice to require aliens who apply for an extension of their permission to remain in the United Kingdom to produce evidence that they have return facilities to another country. Whenever it appears that there is a risk of such applicants losing their citizenship or re-entry facilities, permission to remain is refused.

Mr. J. Silverman: Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary's decision is made on the ground of returnability, which depends on the threat of the United States to withdraw this man's citizenship under the McCarran Act? Secondly, can the Home Secretary point to any other case in which any foreign Power has made a similar threat to withdraw citizenship as that upon which he has acted? Thirdly, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not creating a dangerous precedent in this case by acting in response to something that a foreign Power does, which means in substance that if the foreign Power desires the return of one of its citizens all it has to do is to threaten to withdraw his citizenship?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: May I answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary first, because there has been a great deal of misapprehension on that point? The question rather suggested that in this case the man is returned by some action of mine to a foreign Power. The man in question can go where he likes. The only thing that my action does is to see that he does not stay in this country.
On the first point, of returnability, the hon. Gentleman correctly stated the practice. On the second point, I have not initiated any precedent in this case, and, if I had come to any other decision, I should have been acting contrary to precedent. With regard to the remaining part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I do not think it would be right to give names of specific countries, but I am informed by my Department that the action has had to be taken in numerous cases.

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

under what circumstances the British police can act as agent for the United States authorities or any other foreign Power for the purpose of questioning an alien resident in this country.

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what authority the Birmingham police acted for the United States Government in questioning Dr. Cort.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was with his authority that the Birmingham Criminal Investigation Department interviewed Dr. Cort last December on behalf of the United States authorities; what notice his Department had that they were to do this; and under what authority foreign Governments are permitted to use British police officers to question their nationals resident in Britain.

Dr. Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the connection of the police forces of this country with Interpol has resulted in the interrogation by police officers of persons resident in Great Britain who have not committed any action which would render them liable to prosecution in a British court or to extradition proceedings; and what action he proposes to prevent this happening.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It was not with my knowledge that the Birmingham police interviewed Dr. Cort last December. They were acting in accordance with the normal procedure whereby police forces in this country make inquiries on behalf of foreign police forces, on a reciprocal basis, in matters in which offences against the law are involved. I am considering in consultation with the Commissioner of Police, to whom inquiries from foreign police forces are sent in the first instance, whether it is necessary or desirable that advice should be given to the police as to the scope of investigations undertaken on behalf of police forces elsewhere.

Mr. Silverman: Can the Minister say whether questioning like this normally takes place on non-extraditable offences, and, in particular, offences which are offences in the other country and not against the law of this country? I should also like to know whether, in the case


of Dr. Cort, the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the practice carried out in these circumstances was desirable, because he seems to have adopted it in the statement he made in reply to the Questions submitted last Thursday?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think there are two points. Really the sort of case in which, if I may use the colloquial expression, Interpol work between forces should operate, should not be limited to extraditable offences. But the point I had in mind in the last few lines of my original answer to the hon. Gentleman—and I think it is worth considering—was whether, in any offence of a novel kind and not one which has been constantly used by this procedure, the procedure ought to apply. I do not want to be more specific, because I should like to consider that fully. That, I think, covers the other point which the hon. Gentleman had in mind as to procedure in this case.
I would just like to point out to the hon. Member—and I say this entirely objectively—that I think it is very undesirable that embassies or agencies of other foreign Governments should communicate direct with their nationals in this country. I think that anyone who considers it from any point of view would see that there has to be some channel. As I say, the ordinary channel was followed here, and I think that what I have said should reassure the House that I am going to look into the machinery and see that it will operate in the best way.

Mr. Yates: While I appreciate the Home Secretary's reply, especially that part of it in which he states that he was not aware that this occurred, may I ask him to bear in mind when considering it that a very considerable volume of opinion in Birmingham is shocked that this should have happened, because this way of calling a person and reading over a statement in this manner to a visitor from another country is quite obnoxious.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will examine what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Dr. Stross: Is the Home Secretary aware that one of the charges made by the police, acting as agents for another Power, was that this man had left his own country to evade military service, and that he was asked to give an answer

to that? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman know then, or does he know now, that this man was rejected for military service owing to active pulmonary tuberculosis as well as three other conditions? Had the Minister known these matters then, as he knows them now, would he not have agreed that the charge put to this man was not put in good faith at all?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member. With regard to the first part of his supplementary, it is the same point as that covered by Question No. 43 in the name of his hon. Friend, and perhaps he will wait until I answer that.

Mr. Benn: Will the Minister explain to the House how it was that in his statement last week on this matter he said that Dr. Cort
had refused to make a statement
to the Birmingham police, in view of the fact that this morning I obtained from the Chief Constable of Birmingham, through the courtesy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own Department, a signed statement by Dr. Cort in which he had denied the charges made by the American Embassy and expressed readiness to make any statement required to the Home Office? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman further aware that the Home Office never made any communication with Dr. Cort following that?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With regard to the first point, the facts are that there were two interviews. As I understand it, at the first interview Dr. Cort did not make a reply. He then took advice—I am not criticising his doing this—and at the second interview he made the reply of which I have provided the hon. Gentleman with a copy. That is what happened. With regard to the question of his denial, the position is that if Dr. Cort had either gone to face the charges or had indicated, which he did not, at the earlier stage that he had an answer to the charges which the American authorities could consider, it would then have been for them to consider whether the charges could still be maintained.

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the time he was informed by the United States authorities of the presumption that


Dr. J. Cort was evading national service, what information he was given of the medical condition of Dr. Cort at the time he was rejected, on medical grounds, for army service.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. Member's Question is based on a misapprehension of the facts. The American authorities did not inform me, as suggested in the Question. I received a report on 18th December, 1953, made by the Birmingham police of two interviews which they had had with Dr. Cort. No mention of Dr. Cort's medical condition was made in the report, and I have since ascertained that it was not referred to at the interviews.

Mr. Yates: Is not the Home Secretary aware—and, surely, it was recorded on his medical card—that Dr. Cort was showing signs of active tuberculosis as well as muscular defects resulting from infantile paralysis? In these circumstances, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman really accept the view that Dr. Cort was being recalled for military service? In such a case as that, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman make representations to the American Embassy?

Mr. Shurmer: Is not the Home Secretary aware that this man gave his address to the authorities before he left America? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that a man wanting to evade military service would give his address in this country? Is it not a fact that this is an excuse to get the man back to America to grill him about his early days?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If I had thought that it was an excuse I should have come to a different decision. I do not think it is an excuse. That is one of the reasons, as I have tried to state as fully as I can, why I came to the decision I reached.

Mr. Ede: Is the Home Secretary aware that the man's medical sheet, which I hold in my hand, shows that he suffers from a residual poliomyelitis, residual tuberculosis, dangerous allergy and marked myopia? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in what army in the world a man suffering from those complaints would be of any use?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I submit—although it is most unusual in the case of the right hon. Gentleman—that that is an irrelevant consideration. If the man were in bad health he would be rejected, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that many people, especially those who are to do specialised duties, are called up for medical examination and are then rejected.

Mr. Attlee: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman look back into the Home Office records of previous applications made by Governments for the return of refugees and see just what kind of points were put up? Because if there does happen to be in a country a certain wave of persecution hysteria it is very essential that this country should stand by its own principles.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I can answer both points. The law of asylum in this country remains as it has always been. It is, as I stated earlier, that asylum will be granted to those whose life or liberty is in danger owing to political or racial persecutions. That still remains. The second point is that no request was made to me by the Government of the United States. I have made that perfectly clear. Any suggestion—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman meant to make it, but even if he did not it should still be dealt with—that I was acting at the request or under the influence of any other Government is entirely untrue.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be prepared to be guided by the report of an eminent medical specialist in this country, chosen by himself, who would examine this man with a view to ascertaining whether he would be fit for military service?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is not the point. The point is that this man has chosen to take such a course as leaves him open to the accusation that he is avoiding the military service Acts of the country concerned. While he is open to that charge he may lose his nationality and therefore will no longer be within the returnability rule. While he is in that position I cannot change my decision.

Fire Brigade Calls (Level-crossing Gates)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise the authorities concerned, drawing their attention to the necessity for local liaison between signal boxes controlling level crossings and individual fire stations, so as to prevent level crossing gates being closed against a fire engine when answering a call.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that a circular is needed. I am advised that the local fire authorities are fully seized of this problem and make whatever arrangements are practicable.

Mr. Erroll: Cannot the Home Secretary assist fire brigades to make more progress in these matters so that a property will not burn down while the fire brigade is waiting while a shunting engine passes leisurely over the crossing?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My hon. Friend knows that I shall be glad to look into any particular difficulty.

Crimes of Violence (Youth Gangs)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent violent and other offences committed by youths have increased during the past year five years and 20 years, respectively; what percentage of those offences have been committed by those known as "Edwardian" gangs; and whether he will carry out a Departmental inquiry into the origin and nature of these gangs of youths.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available for the whole country. In the Metropolitan police district, 406 persons under 21 years of age were dealt with for crimes of violence in 1953 and 9,002 for other indictable crimes; the comparable figures for 1952 were 310 and 10,287, and for 1948, 336 and 11,320. The information asked for in the second part of the Question is not available. As regards the last part of the Question, I cannot find on present information that an inquiry of the kind suggested is necessary, and there is little I can add to the reply which I gave to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown (Mr. H. Johnson) on 6th May last.

Mr. Sorensen: Do not the figures which the Home Secretary has given show that, contrary to public assumption, there has not been a very great increase in crimes of violence among these young people? In those circumstances, would it not be well to make it clear that these so-called "Edwardian" youths in exotic clothing are not necessarily more prone to violence than were their predecessors years ago?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I liked the approach which was made to me by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and someone else on the last occasion. I shall be very glad to see the boys' clubs and young persons' interest aspect of the matter developed as much as possible.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not desirable to make some inquiry so as to give these youths a measure of exoneration for what has been a slander?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We have the information in the figures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the figures are probably smaller than were expected, but they are much too large for any complacency. This is a matter to which we must direct all the attention and power we can.

Wandsworth Prison (Overcrowding)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will transfer the female prisoners at Holloway to another prison and use Holloway to reduce overcrowding at Wandsworth.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that there is no suitable alternative accommodation available to which the prisoners and staff at Holloway prison could be transferred.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: If this suggestion is not practical, can the Home Secretary say what action he has already taken or proposes to take to reduce the overcrowding, in view of the tendency to demoralisation which we know about at Wandsworth Prison?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: We are trying to get every prisoner who is suitable for such treatment into an open prison. That is going on all the time. The original Question was about Holloway Prison. The prisoners there are for the most part


unsuitable for open establishment. Those who are suitable for open prisons are removed there.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What about the overcrowding at Wandsworth?

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (UNSUITABLE TEACHERS)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. GEORGE THOMAS: To ask the Minister of Education, whether she will now indicate when she will be able to implement the provisions of Part III of the Education Act, 1944.

Dr. KING: To ask the Minister of Education, whether she will now state what measures she is proposing in order to prevent men previously convicted of sexual offences against children from setting up or teaching in private schools.

Mr. GILBERT LONGDEN: To ask the Minister of Education, whether she is now in a position to state the result of her consultations with the Secretary of State for the Home Department about the exclusion from schools of teachers convicted of serious offences against young persons.

Mr. DODDS: To ask the Minister of Education, if she can yet state what action she proposes to take to ensure that teachers in private schools are suitable persons to be in charge of children.

At the end of Questions—

The Minister of Education (Miss Florence Horsbrugh): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to answer these Questions.
The Government have considered the best action to take to exclude from teaching persons convicted of offences against young people, and also the more general question of bringing into operation Part III of the Education Act, 1944. In doing so they have borne in mind that the great majority of independent schools exercise the utmost care in appointing teachers, and play a valuable part in the education of the nation's children.
As the House knows, Part III was devised for the general object of safeguarding educational standards in independent schools. It is my view that if Part III were introduced now, when the

pressure on schools is at its heaviest, the standards which could be required of independent schools for registration under the Act would be too low, and I think that it would do more harm than good to bring this part of the Act into operation in these circumstances. As the pressure on the schools becomes less, the prospect of operating Part III satisfactorily will improve. With this in mind I propose to put in hand the necessary preparations to enable Part III to come into force in about 1957.
When Part III of the Act is in operation it will be necessary, for the specific purpose of excluding unsuitable teachers, to ensure that my Department has adequate information about teachers employed in schools of all types. I propose, therefore, to introduce at once certain changes in the procedure which will be needed when Part III is in operation and which will in the meantime help me and the school authorities to see that unsuitable teachers are excluded from employment.
First, I propose to invite the proprietors of independent schools to let me have from now on particulars of their staffs, and of changes from time to time, and I have very little doubt that they will be willing to do so. Secondly, I propose to make my information more complete by extending to schools which are recognised as efficient the requirements already imposed on grant-aided schools to report the facts to me if a teachers' engagement is terminated on account of misconduct, grave professional default, or conviction of a criminal offence. Finally, I have made arrangements with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to be supplied with particulars of convictions for serious offences against young people committed by persons engaged, or likely to be engaged, in the teaching profession.
Where I find in any of these ways that a person who appears to be unsuitable is being employed as a teacher, I shall proceed as I already do in grant-aided schools. I shall first communicate with the teacher, and after considering what he has to say I shall then, if necessary, make the facts known to the authorities of the school. School authorities, I am sure, will not wish to retain in their service persons who are known to be unsuitable.
With the help I am confident of receiving from the schools, the measures which I have announced today will, I believe, prove a valuable safeguard during the relatively short period before Part III is put in force, My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to say that corresponding arrangements will be made for Scotland.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Minister aware that the teaching profession will welcome her proposal to take action, but 1957 seems a long way ahead? What steps does she propose to take if private school authorities turn down her invitation to supply her with details about the members of their staffs? Will she make this a requirement, and will she now give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Ministry of Education be indifferent when people with bad records are put in authority over children in private schools?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the Ministry of Education is certainly not indifferent, but this is a very difficult problem. I have already had discussions with the major associations of independent schools who have assured me of their willing cooperation. The short-term measure which I have outlined depends for its effectiveness on the co-operation of the schools, and I am confident that it will be forthcoming. If there were exceptional delay or refusal to act as is thought necessary for the pupils' protection, the local authority concerned would be asked to consider taking action under the Children and Young Persons Act, and this might lead to court proceedings.

Mr. G. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for her statement, may I ask whether she is satisfied that the measures which she has announced will be sufficient to cope with the proprietors of such schools, as well as with the teachers?

Miss Horsbrugh: Yes, I have considered that. The same procedure will be followed in the case of a proprietor. We would write to the proprietors, and again if there were delay or refusal to act as we should like them to act, the local authority would be informed and would be asked to consider taking action under the Children and Young Persons Act.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the whole House is pleased with what

she is doing to prevent children from being in danger of being taught in schools by convicted homosexuals? Is she also aware that we do not accept her argument that the fixing of minimum standards for private schools under Part III of the Act would tie her hand in the future and prevent her from raising those standards, and that all the arguments that we have used in the more dramatic case of preventing our children from being taught by convicted homosexuals apply equally to bad conditions and the employment of unqualified teachers in the private sector of British education?

Miss Horsbrugh: The reason I think it would not be satisfactory to bring in Part III earlier is that I believe that we should not be able to insist on a sufficiently high standard because the condition of many of our schools is such that we should not approve of them in the future. Once a school is registered, even though it is of a low standard and is in bad premises, it would not be possible to de-register it.

Mr. Dodds: The Minister has undoubtedly taken a very important step forward in a very important matter, but if her proposal proves to be ineffective, will she then try to bring in Part III before 1957? What is the good of a high standard of education if the children are taught in conditions which are evil?

Miss Horsbrugh: I shall certainly watch the situation very carefully, but I want to make it clear that I believe it would not be to the advantage of education generally to bring in Part III too early, because we can only make a change in the registration of a school if it falls below the standard at which it was originally registered.

Mr. Nicholson: If a person is condemned by the Minister and feels that he is unjustly condemned, will he have recourse to a court of law?

Miss Horsbrugh: This will not be a case of condemning. If the Minister of Education is informed that a person has been convicted, as I have said, that person will be communicated with in order that I may hear what he has to say. I have pointed out that the arrangement depends on co-operation, and it is a voluntary arrangement. Apart from that, of course, if there were proceedings under the


Children and Young Persons Act, naturally the court would be a tribunal.

Mr. Nicholson: Yes, but surely—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Attlee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 5TH JULY—Supply [19th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Civil Defence.

Motions to approve: Draft Civil Defence (Casualty Collection) Regulations.

Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Mariners) Amendment Regulations.

TUESDAY, 6TH JULY—Supply [20th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on the Sale of Road Haulage Assets until 7 o'clock.

Afterwards, debate on the Overseas Information Service.

WEDNESDAY, 7TH JULY—Report stage: Finance Bill.

THURSDAY, 8TH JULY—It is hoped to conclude the Report stage of the Finance Bill about dinner time; and then consider the Lords Amendments to the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill.

FRIDAY, 9TH JULY—Motion for an humble Address relating to the Gift of a Mace to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in Committee.

Second Reading: Gas and Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Bill.

Committee stage: Money Resolution.

If there is time, Second Reading: Pests Bill [Lords].

Committee stage: Money Resolution.

During the week we hope that the House will give its attention to the Motion relating to the Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order.

Mr. Attlee: May I make three points? First, on Tuesday we shall ask that

Supply be taken formally, for the purpose of discussing Motions on the two subjects of which the right hon. Gentleman has given notice—the sale of road haulage assets and the Overseas Information Service. The right hon. Gentleman said that it is hoped to conclude the Report stage of the Finance Bill on Thursday. That is an expression of hope and not a concluded agreement. Thirdly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell me anything about the forthcoming debate on Crichel Down? The Minister of Agriculture said this afternoon that he proposed to make a statement when the debate is held. We have not had any notice of it.

Mr. Crookshank: We have not fixed any time, but I think that last week we said that we hoped to settle a time as soon as possible. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a very suitable matter to discuss in the absence of the Prime Minister, and it will not be until after his return.

Mr. Attlee: I wondered whether it would be on the Floor of the House or in the 1922 Committee.

Mr. Beswick: Is the Leader of the House still prepared to maintain that we are going to have the Food and Drugs Bill this Session?

Mr. Crookshank: All in good time. Sir.

Mrs. Braddock: Following the previous question, could the Leader of the House tell me whether his attention has been drawn to the article in the "Municipal Journal" of 25th June with reference to the Food and Drugs Bill, and whether this section of the article is correct:
The hotel and catering organisations have clearly won their battle with the Minister of Food over the clean food regulations to be made under the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Bill.
It goes on to say that only 22 of the 67 recommendations now remain, and that a Ministry spokesman said:
We are naturally anxious that the proposals should not receive publicity.

Mr. M. Lindsay: On a point of order. Is this partisan speech in order on the question of Business?

Mr. Speaker: We are on the question of Business now. I hope that the hon.


Lady will conclude what she has to say with a question about the Bill to which she has referred.

Mrs. Braddock: Yes, Sir. I was asking under what circumstances and when we are to have an opportunity of making comments upon this Bill, because the Session is coming to a close. In view of the fact that the Bill is not to be dealt with next week, can we be told what the situation is?

Mr. Crookshank: The answer to the last part of the hon. Lady's question is, "No." The answer to the first part is that I am afraid I do not read the "Municipal Journal" with quite the same attention as the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Braddock: The right hon. Gentleman really ought to.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food indicated that it was still the hope of the Government to introduce a Bill on food and drugs? In view of that statement, is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to acquaint the House with the intentions of the Government about the bringing forward of the Bill?

Mr. Crookshank: I really do not understand what the hon. Member means. It is not the hope of the Government to introduce a Bill; a Bill has been introduced. It has been through the other place and it has received its First Reading here. The question is when it is going to have its Second Reading, and I said, in answer to that question, "All in good time."

Mr. Hale: The right hon. Gentleman may not read the journal to which my hon. Friend referred, but does he read the Order Paper of the House? If he does, he will see that it discloses the fact that there are many Bills which are still undealt with. Does he realise that he has no chance of getting the Food and Drugs Bill through unless he brings it forward straight away? Can he also tell us when we shall have a debate on capital punishment and hear the decision of the Government? Can he say whether it will be next week? Will he explain what is holding up an important constitutional Measure—the Ministers of the Crown (Fisheries) Bill? This important Bill was

referred to a Standing Committee as recently as Friday last. It received a unanimous Second Reading, but all the information we can get at the moment is that it has disappeared somewhere between the Floor of the House and upstairs. There is a suspicion of infanticide here. Can we be given some information?

Mr. Crookshank: If the Bill has been sent to a Standing Committee it has passed outside my knowledge, so I cannot answer the hon. Member in regard to that. As regards a debate on capital punishment, I am afraid that no Government time is available at present.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. The Ministers of the Crown (Fisheries) Bill was passed last Friday, Mr. Speaker, but the usual notice saying that you have allocated it to a certain Standing Committee has not appeared on the Order Paper. With great respect, as it was committed to a Standing Committee by the House, if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill does not want to proceed further with it, the proper course is for him to move a Motion in Committee. It is an unfortunate situation when a Bill which has received the unanimous approval of the House does not seem to have been allocated to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Bill has been withdrawn by the hon. Member in charge of it.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, the hon. Member is surely not in a position to withdraw it. It was committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Speaker: So far as I know, the hon. Member who is in charge of the Bill can do what he likes with it.

Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst the Leader of the House is making up his mind when we may expect the next stage of the Food and Drugs Bill, will he say whether he is prepared to place before the House, or at least put in the Library of the House, a list of trade associations and commercial interests which have made representations to the Government on this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on Business. If there are any more questions on Business, let us have them.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to Crichel Down, in view of the repeated statements of the Minister of Agriculture, when he was questioned on the subject, that it would be better dealt with in debate—thereby indicating his clear assumption that there would be a debate—and I take it from the Lord Privy Seal that there is no question whatever about the Government providing time for a debate?

Mr. Crookshank: These are matters which are still for consideration. It is quite clear that there should be a debate.

Mr. Morrison: Is there any question about the Government providing time? The Minister of Agriculture, seeking to evade or shorten Parliamentary Questions—for reasons which we quite understand—said that this matter would be debated. I am not asking when it will be debated, but I am saying that when a Minister offers facilities for a debate and assumes it will take place the Government should provide time for it.

Mr. Crookshank: I really do not think the right hon. Gentleman need press me at the moment. I have made the position quite clear. As he knows, these are matters which are often dealt with through the usual channels, in order to find what is the most convenient method of handling the matter from the point of view of the House as a whole.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite seized of the point. When a Minister is asked a Question by a Member of the House and says that he is not prepared to answer it because he is going to make a speech in a debate on the matter, it clearly must mean that he has been to the Leader of the House and has ascertained that the Government will provide time for him to make that speech. He would not have gone to the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman must have been quite clear on the point, otherwise he had no right to make such a reply.

Mr. Lewis: Can we have a definite assurance that whatever decision is arrived at by the Government will be implemented by them, and that they will not run away from it at the request and pressure of the 1922 Committee?

Mr. J. Hudson: I did not understand your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which was raised regarding a

Bill which was passed by this House and in respect of which it refused permission to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) to withdraw it. Is it still your Ruling that when permission to withdraw a Bill has been refused, it is still within the rights of the Member concerned to jettison it?

Mr. Speaker: I remember the occasion perfectly well. The hon. Member in charge of the Bill moved, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." but after a short debate he asked leave to withdraw the Motion. That was refused by the House, and the Bill was then read a Second time. But the conduct of the Bill after that is in the hands of the hon. Member who brought it in. I was not aware of the circumstances which have been brought to my attention by the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and I should like to look into them a little more, but my impression of how the matter stands at the moment is as I have described it. If there is anything else I can do to clear up the matter, I shall gladly do it.

Mr. Beswick: In connection with the withdrawal of Bills, we are given to understand that a private Member can introduce a Bill in this House and then deliberately jettison it contrary to the wishes of the House. The point I wish to put is that, although the time of the House is limited, and the time of Members is not unlimited, a number of Bills have been introduced by the Government this Session and nothing more has been heard of them subsequently. There was the Food and Drugs Bill, the Dentists Bill, and the Teachers' Superannuation Bill. Is there no protection for hon. Members—who have not an unlimited amount of time—against the introduction by the Government of Bills which are not subsequently pursued?

Mr. Speaker: My experience of the House is that Bills are frequently introduced in the hope that there will be time for their discussion and completion, but that that hope is sometimes falsified by events.

Mr. Edward Evans: Mr. Speaker, I should like respectfully to draw your attention to the Votes and Proceedings of the House for 25th June, which state:
14. Ministers of the Crown (Fisheries) Bill,—read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.


In those circumstances, how can the hon. Member who introduced the Bill be justified in declaring that he withdraws it, in defiance of the wishes of this House as recorded in the Votes and Proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: I have said all I can on that. The Member in charge of the Bill is in control of the Bill.

Mr. Foot: If a Member in these circumstances has still the right to withdraw a Bill at any time, could you tell the House, Mr. Speaker, when you make your statement, how the Member should withdraw it? In this case, apparently, you yourself were not informed that the Bill was about to be withdrawn, and the Leader of the House showed, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that he apparently knew nothing of the withdrawal of the Bill, and other Members have no means of discovering what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) is doing about his Bill. Should not an explanation also be given to the House of how the House should be informed if a Member runs away from his own Measure?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Bill was withdrawn by the hon. Member in the Public Bill Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The fact was published in the Votes. However, all this is new to me and I have no more knowledge of it, and it is useless to carry the matter further at this stage.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Is there a fresh point of order?

Mr. Edward Evans: On the list of sponsors of the Bill there were 12 names, but during the whole of the debate on Friday not more than five of them attended or took any part in the debate. Ought not the Chief Whip to exercise a little discipline over the Members of his party to see they do come and do their work?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with the matter. I am assisted by the learned Clerk, who has handed me the Votes and proceedings for 29th June. Item 15 states:

Ministers of the Crown (Fisheries) Bill,—Order [25th June], That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee, read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.
That was done in the ordinary way, I think, in the Public Bill Office, but I will look into it.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I myself have a point of order. I ask the House not to pursue this matter further. There is nothing I can do to enlighten hon. Members on it. Since it has been raised. I shall have to look into the circumstances. I have given my impression, from my knowledge of the procedure of the House, of what happened. That is all I can say. I ask hon. Members not to waste more time by discussing the matter further now, because I cannot help them further. I have said all I know about it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: There is an aspect of the matter which I venture to think you, Mr. Speaker, could deal with now. If the House approves of a Bill, and the Bill is then committed to a Standing Committee, surely the House or the Committee is seized of it, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really cannot hear the hon. and learned Member on this matter. I have said all I can on it.

Mr. J. Hynd: Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the business for next week. May I respectfully ask your guidance on what basis it is decided that legitimate questions on the business for next week are stopped, because there is an important matter that has arisen latterly about which I should have liked to ask a question? It is about the evasion of the Government of their responsibilities as a member of the United Nations regarding the Guatemalan situation and the possibility of an early debate.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot express an opinion on that. There have been a great number of questions today on business. I try to select those hon. Members who, I think, have questions to ask on business that the House should hear. Sometimes I am not very successful in my choice.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (MEMBERSHIP)

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the appointment of the members of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954. A similar statement is being made in another place by my right hon. Friend the Lord President.
The Act prescribes that the Authority shall consist of not fewer than eight and not more than 11 members. Eight members have now been appointed, and my right hon. Friend intends shortly to appoint one additional member.
The following have agreed to serve as members of the Authority:—Sir Edwin Plowden as Chairman, Sir John Cockcroft. Sir Christopher Hinton, Sir William Penney. Sir Donald Perrott, Lord Cherwell, Sir Luke Fawcett and I. A. R. Stedeford, Esq., K.B.E., the last three named on a part-time basis.
The Chairman will receive a salary of £8,500 a year and the remaining members, other than the part-time members, £5,000 a year. Sir John Cockcroft, Sir Christopher Hinton and Sir William Penney will receive an additional payment of £1,000 per annum in their capacity as executives of the Authority. The part-time members will receive £500 a year, save that Lord Cherwell will, at his own request, draw no payment.
The members have been appointed as from 19th July. An Order in Council, made in accordance with the provisions of the Act, has fixed 1st August as the appointed day on which the Authority shall commence to exercise its functions.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The individuals chosen by the Government for membership of this Authority ensure that it will be a very strong one, and, of course, we wish it all success, but a point arises in regard to additional payment of some members of this Authority about which I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. It is surely entirely unprecedented that on any public body, corporation or board there should be additional payments given to members of the corporation for their executive

offices? I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not an entirely new procedure and whether he has considered the repercussions of it on other authorities and corporations in the future, and whether it does not create a very strange situation when there is only one member of the Authority, Sir Donald Perrott, who gets the basic salary of £5,000 a year. I would further ask what is the present salary of the three gentlemen who will in future get £6,000 a year.

Sir D. Eccles: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to inquire about the last part of his question. I will write to him about the present salaries. [HON MEMBERS: "Publicly."] If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question, I shall be pleased to give him the information. With regard to the appointment of executives as members of the Authority, this is a very novel and exceptional Authority. It was felt that these three gentlemen, who are so well known to the House, should, because their executive work is so heavy, have this additional £1,000 a year. Very careful consideration was given to this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is the top rate of £8,500 now becoming the standard rate for these positions? I thought it was tending to be £7,500. Is there enough work for the gentlemen to do who are appointed full-time at £5,000? Is there enough work for them to do to justify a salary of £5,000? Reverting to my right hon. Friend's question, is it not really wrong as a matter of principle and of good public administration that executives should be mixed up with members of the board? Is not the function of members of the board to supervise and check the work of the executive officers under the Board? If the executive officers become, in this proportion, or indeed in any proportion, members of the board, who is left to check the work of the executive officers under the board?

Sir D. Eccles: The first point about the rate of £8,500 is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and I will bring it to his notice.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible.

Sr. D. Eccles: The right hon. Gentleman say's that I am responsible. I am, but only for the Atomic Energy Authority, not


for the salary scales of the Government as a whole. There is more than enough work for these three distinguished scientists and engineers. I doubt if there is any position in industry today which calls for more skill and more work than these three gentlemen have to perform.
I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman on the last point. The fact of the matter is that these three executives have been in charge of separate sections of the old atomic energy project, and for the time being, until separate managers can be found to take over those sections, it is necessary for them to double the work of continuing to be in charge respectively of research, of production and of the bomb. Therefore, they have to be both members of the Authority and executives. I think that this is probably a temporary arrangement.

Mr. Morrison: If it be the case that these, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), said, estimable and expert people must go on with their executive departmental work, why not let them go on with that work? What is the necessity for making them members of the Authority which has to supervise the work of the executive officers who are under it? Is it not wrong that we should confuse the responsibilities of executive officers responsible to the Authority by making them members of the Authority so that there is a double situation of great confusion, which is surely wrong in relation to the principles of good public administration?

Sir D. Eccles: If the right hon. Gentleman had attended our debates, he would have heard me say that one of the reasons for bringing in the Atomic Energy Authority is precisely the desire to co-ordinate these three and in some ways separate and overlapping departments of the project. We think—I think results are already coming in—that the fact that these three gentlemen now sit round the same table and discuss in common the problems of atomic energy and take joint responsibility for the continuing programme, is a very good thing.

Mr. Attlee: Is it not rather curious, when we hear such complaints about the excessive cost of Government and the numbers of Ministers, that we are now substituting for one Minister about six

people who are to be paid more than a Cabinet Minister?

Sir D. Eccles: I can only say that comparisons as between Ministers and these executives are odious.

Mr. Assheton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that many of the most successful commercial organisations of the world are organised in this very way—certain members of the board hold executive offices and certain members do not? Many of the greatest corporations, both in America and in this country, are organised in this way.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes.

Mr. Usborne: In the case of the executives, would it not have been far better if they had been paid an adequate salary for their executive positions, and if they had also to be on the Authority—there is a good argument for them being so—I cannot see why they need additional remuneration for attending board meetings in what is obviously working time, for which they are already paid their executive salary?

Sir D. Eccles: It is a matter of choice how their salaries are paid. I think that the hon. Member will know that these particular men could, if they were to cross the Atlantic, get very much more than they are getting here.

An Hon. Member: So could we.

Mr. Erroll: Would the Minister agree that the nationalised boards, and particularly the British Electricity Authority, which are organised on the same pattern, are working very well?

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Would the Minister indicate whether, in addition to the stated salaries, the members of the Authority will receive expenses allowances for any activities connected with the board?

Sir D. Eccles: Under the Act we have to lay before Parliament a statement of any extra remuneration and allowances and pensions, and we shall do that in due course.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. I put a question to the Minister. He has not answered it. I am asking him to say—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. We often hear that complaint made of Ministers.

Mr. Ede: Could the Minister explain how it was that a statement appeared on the tape during lunch-time that Lord Salisbury would be making this announcement in the Lords this afternoon, and giving the list of the names, and is that a proper way to treat this House? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how the leak occurred? With regard to the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne), will the right hon. Gentleman warn any of these scientists who may be contemplating going to America that they should read the life history of Dr. Oppenheimer?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: We really cannot debate this matter now.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: On a point of order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that when a question has been put to a Minister by a Member, it is the Minister's duty at least to attempt to answer it? Therefore, I suggest that the Minister should answer the question which I put to him, namely, whether, in addition to their salaries, the members of this Authority will receive expenses allowances?

Mr. Speaker: I think the Minister said that any such expenses allowances paid would appear before the House in the usual way. The hon. Member may not consider that to be a satisfactory answer,

but I can assure him that such a feeling is common to those who ask questions of Ministers.

Mr. Lewis: In view of the fact that we have had one or two precedents in recent weeks, can you. Mr. Speaker, give us any idea as to what assurance we can have that if, as may well be the case, the 1922 Committee meets and objects to these salaries being paid until old age pensioners and the more hard-pressed are dealt with, the House will not be flouted and that the Minister will not withdraw this statement?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that is a hypothetical question, and I do not think, so long as I have any authority in the matter, that the House will be flouted in any way.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: May I ask the Minister whether his reply to my question is "Yes"?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Member ought to write to the Minister.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 228.

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[4.19 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Drayson, G. B.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Alport, C. J. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bullard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullus, Wing-Commander E E
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Burden, F. F. A.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Campbell, Sir David
Erroll, F. J.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M
Channon, H.
Fisher, Nigel


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth. W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cole, Norman
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Colegate, W. A.
Fort, R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Foster, John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Birch, Nigel
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Bishop, F. P.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gammans, L. D.


Black, C. W.
Crouch, R. F.
Gamer-Evans, E. H.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Glover, D.


Bowen, E. R.
Davidson, Viscountess
Godber, J. B.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon J. A.
Deedes, W. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Digby, S. Wingfield
Gough, C. F. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Gower, H. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Donner, Sir P. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W. H.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grimond, J.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)




Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McAdden, S. J.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S
Robson-Brown, W.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Roper, Sir Harold


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.
Russell, R. S.


Harvey Air Cdre, A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macleod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Scott, R. Donald


Heath, Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Snadden, W. McN.


Holland-Martin, C. J
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hollis, M. C
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Speir, R. M.


Holt, A. F.
Maude, Angus
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Maudling, R.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Mayden, Lt.-Commander, S. L. C.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Horobin, I. M.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Storey, S.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N
Studholme, H. G.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Neave, Airey
Summers, G. S.


Hurd, A. R.
Nicholls, Harmar
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Teeling, W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Nutting, Anthony
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Odey, G. W.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Jones. A. (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co Antrim, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Tilney, John


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Kerr, H. W.
Orr-Ewing. Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Turton, R. H.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Page, R. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lambton, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Vosper, D. F.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pick'horn, K. W. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pilkington, Capt. R A
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon A. T.
Pitman, I. J.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lindsay, Martin
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J. Enoch
Watkinson, H. A.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Pries, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wellwood, W.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, M.
Wills, G.


Low, A. R. W.
Rees-Davies, W. R
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Renton, D. L. M.



Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridsdale, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Robertson, Sir David
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Albu, A. H.
Boardman, H.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, H. W.
Daines, P.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bowles, F. G.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Awbery, S. S.
Brookway, A. F.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Baird, J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Balfour, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Bartley, P.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Bence, C. R.
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Chetwynd, G. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.


Beswick, F.
Clunie, J.
Edelman, M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blackburn, F.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blenkinsop, A.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)







Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lawson, G. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ross, William


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Logan, D. G.
Royle, C.


Follick, M.
MacColl, J. E.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Foot, M. M.
McInnes, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Gibson, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Snow, J. W.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorensen, R. W.


Grenfell Rt. Hon. D. R.
Manuel, A. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Messer, Sir F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)


Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hargreaves, A.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, Ioerwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hastings, S.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hayman, F. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mort, D. L.
Thornton, E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Moyle, A.
Timmons, J.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulley, F. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hobson, C. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Usborne, H. C.


Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Holmes, Hornee
Oldfield, W. H.
Wallace, H. W.


Houghton, Douglas
Oliver, G. H.
Warbey, W. N


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
West, D. G.


Hynd, J. B. (Attersliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wigg, George


Janner, B.
Pannell, Charles
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Willey, F. T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Paten, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stanford)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearl, T. F.
Willis, E. G.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Porter, G.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham. S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Keenan, W.
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. F.


Kenyon, C.
Rankin, John
Younger, Rt Hon. K.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Reeves, J.



King, Dr. H. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinley, J.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Rogers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MINES AND QUARRIES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

4.29 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(QUALIFICATIONS OF MINE MANAGERS.)

Amendments made: In page 4, line 20, leave out "twenty-five." and insert "twenty-six."

In line 28, after "that," insert:
this subsection shall apply to the mine, and.

In line 29, after second "be," insert "appointed or to be the."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 5.—(LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF MINES WHICH A PERSON MAY MANAGE.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 3, after "fulfilment," insert:
, in relation to those mines or ant of them."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 6.—(UNDER-MANAGERS.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, at end, insert:
and to the following provisions of this Act."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 7.—(TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS DURING VACANCY IN OFFICE OF MINE MANAGER OR UNDER-MANAGER.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. L. W. Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out "ninety," and to insert "seventy-two."
I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the next two Amendments and also the Amendment in Clause 94, page 59, line 5, which are all of a similar nature.
The Clause deals with temporary appointments during vacancy in the office of the mine manager or under-manager, and a time-limit has to be fixed beyond which a substitute who may be unqualified is not allowed to occupy the position of manager. Under the 1911 Act, the time-limit that was fixed, subject always to extension by an inspector, was four months, or roughly 120 days.
When we came to consider the Bill, we thought that the period might beneficially be reduced, and therefore we brought it

down to 90 days. In Committee considerable pressure was brought to bear upon us to reduce the period still further, right down to 48 days. We undertook to look into the matter and to see what was the shortest time—we are all agreed that we want this to be as short as possible—that could be safely laid down.
We have now come to the conclusion that the lowest figure which we can insert as to the maximum period is 72 days. This may appear to hon. Members opposite as being too long, but I ask them to bear in mind that it is a maximum period and that in a simple case there is every expectation that an appointment would be made much sooner. We must, however, provide for the difficult case and for the case where it is a matter, not merely of one appointment, but of several successive appointments. For example, when the National Coal Board seeks to promote managers from a smaller mine to a bigger mine, it is obviously desirable that when a succession of promotions is involved they should all be made consecutively, so that one manager can hand over to his successor. Our conclusion, after consultation, is that the best and lowest maximum period that we can write into the Bill is 72 days, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 33, leave out "ninety," and insert "seventy-two."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(DAILY SUPERVISION BY MINE. MANAGERS AND UNDER-MANAGERS.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 16, leave out "ninety," and insert "seventy-two."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to mow, in page 7, line 37, to leave out "an under-manager thereof," and to insert:
the under-manager thereof in whose place he is acting.
This is a formal Amendment to clarify the phraseology.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 9.—(CHARGE OF MINE WHERE NEITHER MANAGER NOR ACTING MANAGER NOR UNDER-MANAGER IS PRESENT.)

Mr. William Blyton: I beg to move, in page 8, line 2, to leave out "(if any)."
I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if the discussion on this Amendment could cover also the many other Amendments of a like nature throughout the Bill: they are practically identical.
This is a question of the qualifications of various people in the mines. In our view, the words "if any" can be interpreted to allow responsible positions to be held by somebody without any qualifications. The Clause applies to managers, under-managers and deputies. Presumably, it is not intended that a colliery manager or under-manager should not have qualifications, and, quite clearly, a deputy must be qualified. The removal of the words "if any" would avoid ambiguity.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Amendment relates to a person having charge of a mine when neither the manager, acting manager nor under-manager is present and when the over-men in the industry take charge. I take it that the Clause deals specifically with over-men and no other persons. The Bill is not up-to-date and cannot be up-to-date until it recognises the status of the over-men. In responsibility nowadays they receive far more recognition from workmen, from management and from the Board, and yet, odd though it may seem, they have no statutory powers, they sign no statutory reports and they have no certificate higher than that of a deputy.
The efficiency and safe working of a colliery depends a great deal upon these officials, and the Clause is inadequate and unsatisfactory in not recognising their status. In previous legislation they have been referred to as officials inferior to under-managers but superior to deputies. As yet, however, they have not received any statutory obligations.
The overmen are responsible for the production and safe working of the colliery during the absence of the manager and under-manager—that is to say, far 50 per cent. of the working time of the colliery, between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. This period of 12 hours includes the most dangerous shift of all, the night shift, when all the coal cutters are working at the faces and shot-firing is in progress

ready for the faces being prepared at six o'clock next morning.
I suggest to the Minister that the status of these overmen should be recognised by providing in the Bill that all overmen should be specially certificated higher than a deputy and that an obligation should be imposed upon them to sign a daily statutory report. I cannot understand why the Minister has omitted any reference to these officials.
Safety is our aim. We cannot get safety of the standard that we require if during 50 per cent. of the working time of the colliery we allow officials to be in charge who have no certificate higher than that of a deputy. I hope that the Minister recognises the wisdom of these Amendments and will agree to this provision for future eventualities by the higher certification of overmen. Can the Minister say what are the views of the Coal Board on this matter? Does the Board at any time in the future intend to lift the cerificate standard of overmen in the industry?

Mr. Albert Roberts: I do not want to confuse the issue here with the duties of the deputy or overman. I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton). We are concerned with a question of interpretation, and the phrase "if any" seems rather loose. The Bill should say what it means. I hope the Minister will accept our Amendments.

Mr. Harold Finch: The words "if any" appear throughout the Bill and form a very important feature of it. Clause 21 says:
Regulations may require the manager of every mine to keep at the office at the mine a geological map of the district in which the mine is situate, being a map conforming to such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed.
The words "if any" immediately create doubt. Why should we have "if any"? The geological map is of great importance. Is it to be suggested that in certain instances it does not matter if the map does not exist? The words "if any" are also used in relation to the position of the manager. We are justified in pressing for the deletion of the words.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): This is rather a technical legal point, and I hope that I shall be able to explain it to the House. I can assure the House that the words "if any" have


no belittling effect upon anybody and have no legal effect which might entitle the Minister or anyone else to appoint, or to allow to remain in posts, people who are not efficient.
If we were dealing only with coal mines, there would be no trouble at all, because there is power to prescribe qualifications in the case of coal mines, but the Bill applies also to metalliferous mines and also to very small coal mines where fewer than 14 men are employed and where qualifications are not required.
Therefore, as a matter of pure drafting, we use language which is very clearly established in the drafting of statutes. We refer to "such qualifications (if any) as may be prescribed." If the words "if any" were omitted, the implication would be that one could not have a man carrying out the duties unless qualifications had been prescribed. In the case of metalliferous mines and small mines, no such qualifications are called for, and, therefore, as a matter of pure drafting, we require the words "if any" in the Bill.
I would reinforce what I have said by reference to an example. In Clause 21 we have reference to a map:
… conforming to such requirements (if any) as may be prescribed.
In relation to coal mines, requirements always will be prescribed by regulations, but in relation to other mines there is no power to prescribe the requirements. If "if any" were omitted, we should be stultifying our purpose because we should be referring to something for which there is no legal backing.
I can assure the House that the use of "if any" in the Bill could not possibly have the effect of lowering standards or of allowing low standards to be adopted. It is purely a matter of legal drafting. I assure the House that there is nothing significant in it.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would clear up a point for me. Clause 13 (2) specifically provides for regulations under which a manager may appoint competent persons, and the regulations are to prescribe their qualifications. Would that apply also to Clauses 9 and 11 and others? Is there power to make such regulations in respect of all appointments in coal mines?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. I can give that assurance.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. George Sylvester: The Attorney-General has given us the legal explanation, but we must get down to the practical application of the provision. A manager may be going on his holidays and may appoint someone in charge of the mine—I do not say he would—who has no qualifications, while there may be other men in the mine who have the necessary qualifications. Apparently that would be legal under the Bill as it now stands.
I support the arguments which have been put by my hon. Friends. With all due respect to the Attorney-General, we have to consider how the provision will be construed by a manager. In these circumstances, the manager would no doubt assert that he was acting within the provisions of the Measure.

Mr. David J. Pryde: I regard the reasoning of the Attorney-General as dangerous in the extreme. It may be all right to point out that these words are necessary for the purposes of metalliferous mines and small coal mines, but we have to consider the practical application of the provisions. I appeal to the Attorney-General to look again at the phraseology. It does not matter so much here where we are enacting a Measure, but we have to consider what will happen in actual practice if an accident occurs. What we are enacting will have an influence on the lives and the work of men throughout the coalfields.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Part of our difficulty arises from the original defect in the Bill, which is that it deals with other mines as well as coal mines and also with quarries. Throughout the proceedings in Committee it has been obvious that the language of the Bill is unnecessarily tedious and ambiguous because of the fact that we have not had separate Bills for mines and quarries.
It would be a very dangerous mistake if we allowed it to be assumed that, as a result of leaving in "if any," the obligations in respect of proper qualifications would be weakened. The danger about leaving in "if any" is that it would appear to give the Minister the right to appoint officials without


qualifications. Even if the words "if any" are left in, we must insist that the obligations upon the Minister are as strong as if those words were omitted.
Even if "if any" were omitted, the Minister would still be able to prescribe trivial qualifications, so we should not be protected. The words "if any" do not weaken the provisions. Elsewhere in the Bill a duty is imposed upon the Minister to cause mining officials to have qualifications. If it were said that a manager must have two eyes, that would be a qualification. It is obvious that the provision is not weakened by the use of "if any."
We want to be quite certain that the Attorney-General is right and that the obligation to impose proper qualifications in respect of officials in coal mines exists in other parts of the Bill and will be carried out, and that the obligations upon the Minister in that respect are not weakened.

The Attorney-General: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, I would say that I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) for what he has said. Although he was not able to be with us when we were considering the Bill in Committee, he seems almost to know more about it than anyone else.
With regard to the structure of the Bill in this connection—the words appear in a number of places—it is for the Minister to prescribe the qualifications. In Committee the Minister, on a number of occasions, made a definite statement that he would prescribe, for example, suitable conditions in all these cases, and the Committee thought that that was a better way to do it than to write the conditions into the Bill. That was the way in which we dealt with the matter in Committee. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend. I have no doubt that he may wish to say something about this. However, on several occasions in Committee he was asked this question, and he gave the answer which I have just given.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I may be permitted to say another word, I can understand the preoccupation of my hon. Friends, but the Attorney-General has assured us that there are to be regulations covering the whole matter; that they will meet the points which my hon. Friends have in

mind and that in fact these words will not make any practical difference. In the light of that assurance, I think that my hon. Friends would be willing that this Amendment should be withdrawn.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): There will be regulations with regard to overmen.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 8, line 4, to leave out "either."
I think that it will be convenient to take this Amendment with the next Amendment in line 5, to leave out from "employed," to the end of line 6, and to insert "thereat below ground."
Both these Amendments implement an undertaking given in Committee by my right hon. Friend to meet the point raised that, notwithstanding how few men there were underground, there should always be someone in charge.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 5, leave out from "employed," to end of line 6, and insert "thereat below ground."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 10.—(DUTIES OF MINE MANAGERS WITH RESPECT TO READING OF REPORTS, &C.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out from "other," to "that," in line 14, and to insert, "competent person and."
I think that it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the Amendments to Clause 97, page 60, line 41, and page 61, line 9, which are similar.
Clause 10 deals with the duties of a manager regarding the reading of reports. Hon. Members who were present during Committee will remember that we had a long discussion about this and that dissatisfaction was expressed about the wording of the Bill. My right hon. Friend agreed to reconsider the matter to see whether it was possible to insert words to meet the objections. This is our attempt to do so, which I hope will be acceptable.
In effect, the Amendment says that it is the duty of the manager to see that a competent person reads reports bringing to his attention such matters as require


attention, and if that system fails, an offence is committed by the manager. It puts the responsibility upon the manager, which was what was desired.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(DEPUTIES.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 18, after "prescribed," insert:
by virtue of this paragraph.

In line 29, leave out from "is," to "to," in line 30, and insert "sufficient"—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, at the end, to insert:
The persons appointed shall not perform any duties which in their opinion may interfere with the efficient performance of the duties imposed upon them under paragraph (a) hereof.
This is a very important Amendment. I raised the matter during the Second Reading debate and it was argued at considerable length in Committee. We are raising it again on Report because we wish to be satisfied that the deputy is protected.
Under the 1911 Act the statutory duties of a deputy were specified, but that was repealed in 1947 and the duties were embodied in regulations, either in 1949 or 1950—I am not sure of the date. The statutory duties of a deputy are very important. He has charge of the men in his district, and in law he is responsible for writing a report about the conditions in his district at the end of each shift—the number of persons he has in charge; the condition of the air in the district; that there is sufficient timber for the men.
The duties of a deputy regarding safety precautions are paramount, and the production of coal is a secondary factor. We all know from experience that it is possible for a great deal of pressure to be put upon the deputy to neglect his safety duties in the interest of coal production. Previously the deputy has been able to safeguard himself by saying that under the provisions of the 1911 Act his paramount duty was to attend to the safety of the men under his charge, and that the question of coal production would be dealt with after that duty had been fulfilled. The deputy had another power, that if his district was too big, and it was impossible for him to carry out his statutory duties, he could appeal to

the inspector and have the size of his district reduced.
We desire that the deputy shall be safeguarded against pressure which may be put upon him to produce coal to the detriment of safety. We are not asking that a deputy shall have nothing to do with production at the coalface. There are some who argue that safety and production may be married, but in such a marriage we wish to see that the predominant partner is safety. We therefore move this Amendment to empower the deputy to say that he will attend to the matter of coal production after he has fulfilled his statutory duties relating to safety. If there is nothing to that effect in the Measure, a deputy may find himself in difficulties with those above him.
There is a different set-up in the mining industry today from that which was envisaged when the 1911 Act was passed. Deputies are now on the official staff of the pits. While I am pleased that they have attained that status, I would emphasise that it makes it more imperative that they should be safeguarded against pressure which may be exerted upon them by those above them. If the object of this Bill is to promote safety and protect the interests of the men in the pit, such statutory protection must be afforded to deputies.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment. It is possible that the Minister will mention the 1951 regulations and that he will say that the Government's intentions on this matter are equally as good as ours. That may be so, but without question we should like this provision put clearly in the Bill. All my hon. Friends who have worked in mines understand what the work of a deputy involves. We realise the economic pressure which from time to time has 'been brought to bear upon these officials. This has meant that the statutory duties have been neglected in the interests of production. We want it to be clear that on this issue statutory duties must come first.
We want to ensure that those duties will be properly carried out. I want no sidestepping on this point. Though conditions have changed in the past few years, nevertheless the note is still on production and even more production. The Minister would give great satisfaction if he


accepted the Amendment. My hon. Friend mentioned the size of districts. We all know that, especially in the last 25 years, safety measures have not always received their fair share of attention. We are somewhat apprehensive because, while the colliery manager is responsible for the well-being of a pit and those who work in it, the deputy himself has a most responsible job. We want it stated in no uncertain terms that he must on all occasions fulfil the statutory duties first.

Mr. David Grenfell: The Amendment is far more important than might be assumed from what has been said so far. The deputy holds a key position in the safety administration of a mine. We are discussing the duties of qualified men who have existed for as long as the industry has existed as examiners, deputies or firemen. They have always been charged with the responsibility for inspecting the whole of their district, for seeing that work is properly done, for giving instructions when required, and for giving warning of danger. These men are really the pivot on which the whole of the managerial responsibilities have been centred.
The examiner, the fireman or the deputy is in his district the whole time. The manager is not. The manager has general supervision over the whole of the mine and he must satisfy legal requirements in that respect, but the deputy is confined to his district. Woe to him if he is found outside his district—even though he may be doing similar work—to the neglect of his own work. He is the man in charge.
We suggest that the Bill should not fail to say that the man in charge may not be put on other duties which may interfere with the efficient performance of his own duties. If the deputy is not doing the duties imposed upon him, what could he be doing? What licence is to be given to the manager to give instructions to the deputy to take on additional duties not merely connected with the question of supervision or of safety in his district? We are treating this matter far too lightly. The examiner, the deputy or the fireman is an important person.
I have known a manager to spend a week before he went to see all the districts in his mine. Occasionally, the

under-manager may be away on urgent matters and unable to pay a daily visit but the deputy is there all the time. The workmen have confidence in the deputy. He is generally known as a good workman himself, or he would never be made deputy. Everybody would know what his responsibilities were if the Amendment were accepted. It would be clear that whatever a man was asked to do, especially in a small district where there might be more time at his disposal, he should not neglect the duties for which he was appointed. Even though he does not hold a managerial certificate, the deputy is a person qualified to exercise full control over safety precautions in the industry.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Perhaps it would help if I intervened now to say at once that the Government agree in substance with the case which has been put so powerfully by hon. Gentlemen opposite In no circumstances should any additional duties interfere with the paramountcy of safety duties. I have been into the question of the best way of giving effect to this suggestion. Since the deputies are dealt with under regulations, it would be best dealt with in that way; but since, on this important matter, the House would desire that there should be an injunction in the statute, I should like to advise hon. Members that we have taken advice as to the best way of securing that.
I am advised that the best way would be to have an injunction on the Minister that in making regulations dealing with deputies he should safeguard the paramountcy of safety duties.

Mr. Grenfell: I accept that.

Mr. Lloyd: If hon. Members accept that, the Government will undertake to bring forward appropriate words to that effect.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are very much obliged to the Minister. What he proposes is obviously the best plan. It will certainly meet the point which we have in mind, and I think that my hon. Friend will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: There is an important principle involved in the Amendment and I thank the Minister


for what he has said. However, I press that we should accept the principle laid down in the Amendment which states:
The persons appointed shall not perform any duties which in their opinion may interfere …
That is a most important principle which needs to be safeguarded in what the Minister proposes.
It is the deputy who will have the right of exercising judgment about what may or may not interfere with the efficient performance of the duties imposed upon him. We all know of the old story of how the deputy used to leave his district because there was a breakdown elsewhere: but he cannot do that now because, with mechanisation, the deputy has to be almost an engineer or a fitter to be able immediately to remedy any defect in order to keep coal production in progress.
I do not want the deputy to be under fire from the manager or under-manager or the fireman for not attending to some breakdown on the face because in his opinion that would have interfered with his work under the regulations relating to safety. I hope, therefore, that whatever the Minister does that safety principle will be safeguarded.

Mr. Bevan: The Minister has accepted in principle what we want and, therefore, it is unnecessary to carry the debate much further, but I am puzzled by the situation. I cannot for the life of me understand how a Department with the long experience of this Department could have drafted a Bill and carried it through the Committee stage to the Report stage without having in it a provision for a principle of this sort. We do not know even now what vehicle the Minister will select to carry out his purpose. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) pointed out, one may say that the paramountcy of safety must be made clear, but by whom must it be made clear? Is it to be by the deputy or by the manager?
I should have thought that the Minister would have been able to tell us what kind of vehicle he proposes to use. We have always regarded this as one of the most sensitive points in the whole hierarchy of the mine. In some coalfields we were so conscious that the deputy fireman was used for production purposes in contradistinction to his duties as a safety official

that in some areas we did not allow him to be a member of the miners' union. We kept him outside because we knew that he was not only a safety man.
Let us suppose that an accident occurs and an inquiry is held and it can be shown that if the deputy had done what he might have done the accident might have been avoided and he says, "I was doing something else." Unless the priority of claim upon his time is something which he himself exercises he has a defence at the inquiry. If he is carrying out duties given to him by the manager or the fireman and those duties interfere with his work as a safety official then, unless the priority is determined by himself, he has a defence and we do not want him to have a defence. We want to take it from him and by statute and regulation say that his first duty is to look after the safety of the men and that he must decide the paramountcy. What vehicle does the Minister propose to use to effect this?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. There is no doubt that the reason why the Bill did not specifically mention this subject was that it is so much taken for granted in the Department that the idea that there could be any departure from it never occurred to those concerned. I should like to draw attention to the existing requirements in the regulations dealing with deputies, which were promulgated in 1951. Regulation (2B) uses these unequivocal words:
No deputy shall at any time perform any duty himself, or knowingly permit any work by any workman under his charge, if the same would prevent or delay the performance of any duty or work necessary for safety.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The right hon. Gentleman says that this was taken for granted, but it has always been taken for granted before nationalisation that deputies were frequently called upon to perform duties wholly or partially inconsistent with their primary duty to take immediate action if a fault was discovered. Who is now required to decide whether work done by the deputy is contrary to his duties relating to safety? If the mine manager tells him to do a certain thing and the deputy thinks that his duty lies elsewhere, who determines the point? The object of the Amendment, which is of the utmost importance, is to make clear that the safety man is pretty independent in these matters.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The language which the Minister read to the House is still rather too ambiguous from our point of view. The deputy is under the disability that anyhow he is an employee. A strong deputy can answer back a weak manager, and we want to provide that the deputy shall be able to say to a manager that something should not be done, in his judgment.

Mr. Lloyd: We considered this matter at length in Committee. These regulations were brought into effect in 1951. When I said that these matters were taken for granted, I was not referring to past history, but to present day-to-day administration of health and safety matters in the Ministry of Fuel and Power, which it has been my honour to represent during the passage to date of this Bill. The language which the then Minister inserted in the regulations was meant to be quite unequivocal and it would be my desire also to make the language unequivocal. In the course of our discussions it was desired to go further and to make sure that in the statute the Minister was directed to act in that manner and that such a stipulation should be put in the statute. That procedure we would do well to follow.

Mr. Mason: I should not like the opportunity to pass by without further warning the Minister of the dangerous trend towards deputies placing production before safety. I have had recent experience of working in the industry and I have seen this trend. Deputies have been urged to do things by managers who do not fully realise their folly until an accident occurs. These may be strong words but, nevertheless, they are true.
The Meco-moore, the Samson stripper and other mechanical aids have been introduced and deputies are urged to make a machine a success. Consequently, a deputy will sit on the machine for the whole of the shift and neglect his safety duties. If there is a belt-conveyed face in the mine and there is a breakdown, the deputy is expected to go along and assist in getting the belt ready or repairing the conveyor. Consequently, his duties in examining supports and roadways are neglected. I warn the Minister that these things are taking place. By

adopting the Amendment the position may be remedied.

Mr. Pryde: I hope that the Minister is making a strong effort to meet our views. We who have experience of the coalfields know perfectly well that the fireman has always been the upper and nether millstone. The recent accident at Newcraighall Colliery, Niddrie, Midlothian, accentuated the position of the deputy. A major catastrophe very nearly occurred there. I urge the Minister to make it plain that the deputy will be protected in the performance of his duties.

Mr. Blyton: Our Amendment was entirely based on Regulation (2 B). I am at a loss to understand the terrific opposition of the Government benches to putting this provision in the Statute. It is suggested that the Minister should have some power imposed on him by regulation to do what we want him to do, but why cannot that be put in the Act? If the Minister does not like our wording, why not put in the Act the words:
No deputy shall at any time perform any duty himself, or knowingly permit any work by any workman under his charge, if the same would prevent or delay the due performance of any duty or work necessary for safety.
If the Minister cannot accept our Amendment but would put those words in the Measure, the deputy, by reading the Act, would know that he was statutorily protected. If this is done by regulation some other Minister could give an entirely different interpretation and the deputy would have no statutory protection because the regulation might be altered and not represent the feelings of this House at this time.
I am very sorry that, after three hard fights over two hours in the Committee on this issue, we have not yet been able to reach satisfaction. Let there be no mistake about it, our whole ambition here is to give protection to the deputy—who has onerous duties—so that he can stand up against anyone in the pit who said says that he must get coal and neglect safety duties. We want this provision in the statute. Whether the Minister puts it in by using the words in Regulation (2, B) or by accepting this Amendment does not matter. We are keen that there should be protection for the deputy in his safety duties stated in the statute.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 13.— [OTHER OFFICIALS, ENGINEERS. TECHNICIANS, ETC.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): It may be convenient if, with the next Amendment we discussed the next two Amendments, in page 10, line 4, after "manager." to insert "or owner," and in line 11, at the end, to insert:
(3) Every person appointed pursuant to this section shall be responsible to the manager of the mine for the efficient performance of his duties and nothing in this section shall detract from the powers and duties of the manager of the mine under this Act.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, after "manager," to insert "or owner."
In moving this Amendment I am asking the Minister to make a new departure in regard to mechanical engineers. I do so because a revolution has taken place in the mining industry in the last 10 or 15 years. There was a time when we had an abundance of manual labour, horse haulage and the steam winding engine and coal was screened at the pit top. A transformation has taken place since then and 85 per cent. of the coal produced today is dependent upon the use of electricity. That calls for great responsibility.
It is our view that the mechanical engineers—the men in charge of the department at a colliery—ought to be employed by the owners. In point of fact they are, but we would like this Measure to say so. It is laid down that the surveyor and under-manager shall be appointed by the owner. Where a mechanical engineer is in charge at a large colliery, producing possibly 3,000 tons or 4,000 tons a day entirely by the use of electricity—electricity right from the pit top to the roadway and the actual face—we have always to bear in mind that there are great dangers which call for expert knowledge. Without the electrician it would not be possible, in modern mines, to produce coal. Electricity is used for the lighting at the faces, for the power, for coal cutting, for conveyors, haulage and winding.
Hon. Members must bear in mind that great responsibility is placed on the mechanical engineer. We must make sure that in the appointment of a mechanical engineer the right person is appointed. I fully realise that the colliery manager has to be the captain of the ship and

that the mechanical engineer must receive his instructions from the manager, but we have to remember that in the new set-up in the industry electricians work hand-in-hand with mechanical engineers in planning large schemes. They order the materials and consult each other. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the fact that, statutorily, it is the colliery manager who is responsible. When appointing the head electrical engineer the responsibility should be borne by the owner.
As time goes on in the industry with the demand for more coal and the sinking of more pits there will be a call for more electricity. It is a very admirable servant, but can be a very bad master. I trust that the Minister will give consideration to what we think is a very important problem in the mining world today.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have now moved away from the idea of the old colliery manager and the old colliery engineer. When the mechanical and electrical engineers are appointed, the manager may be there, but the appointments are made by those higher up and the manager has to accept the mechanical and electrical engineers they pick for him. The status of these men in the coal industry is such that the National Coal Board demand that they should have very high qualifications.
The Mining, Electrical and Mechanical Engineers' Association is not trying to detract from the powers of the manager. In a letter which it sent from Glasgow to all hon. Members on this side of the House—I do not know whether hon. Members have received it—it says explicitly that its arguments to be employed by the owner arise from a question of status and in no way detract from the powers of the manager. The Minister should consider this matter in the light of new developments, because, as we mechanise the mines and undertake great capital expenditure programmes, these men will become very important.

Sir Thomas Moore: I cannot pretend to have the technical knowledge necessary for me to support the Amendment, but I want to ask my right hon. Friend why he has not seen fit so far to accept the request of the mechanical engineers. Hon. Members on this side


of the House have the letter to which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) referred and it has caused some doubt as to whether the correct action has been taken in this matter.
As those who were Members of the Standing Committee will recall, the Minister willingly accepted my Amendment to change the word "subordinate" to the word "responsible," making the electrical engineer or mechanical engineer responsible to the colliery manager but not subordinate to him. That was a step forward on the lines indicated by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, but it seems to me that if the appointment of a mechanical or electrical engineer is deemed to be so important because of the development in the industry it is reasonable that it should be made by the owner rather than by the manager.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: There can be no doubt that the responsibilities of mechanical and electrical engineers have enormously increased in mining in the last generation. I can well understand that they desire it to be fully appreciated in the world outside, as well as in the mining world, that their status has increased, but I wish they would not choose this way of marking their increase of status. They are not the only people in the industry whose status has improved and is improving.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) referred to the fact that the old colliery engineer was a thing of the past. It is true to say, too, that the old colliery manager, or a certain type of the old colliery manager, is becoming a thing of the past, and we also want the status of the manager to improve and to grow with the revolution which is taking place in the industry with the introduction of all these up-to-date techniques of mining. The status of the miner himself has improved and we want to see it continue to improve.
It is, therefore, wrong to introduce a conception by which there is a kind of competitive race for status within the industry. While I appreciate and agree that the status of the electrical and mechanical engineers is improving, and while we note that fact and desire it to continue, we do not feel that this is the

right way in winch to note it. We feel that it is still right that the colliery manager should make these appointments, as he has done in the past.

Mr. A. Roberts: In all our debates on the coal industry we refer to the fact that not enough young experts are coming into the mining industry. We want technicians. No doubt in the next debate the lack of technicians in the mining industry will be a cardinal point of the discussion. In the meantime, young technicians are leaving the industry to become maintenance engineers or electricians in factories, where they get a far better job than they do when working inside the coal field. I am pleased that the Minister said that we must enhance the status of these men, where possible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member had intervened to ask a question.

Mr. Roberts: I am sorry that I have been led astray. Did the Minister bear in mind the point which I was making about the need to attract young technicians into the industry?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not considered that point in relation to this proposal. We all know how important it is, but, if the hon. Member will allow me to say so, I do not think it is a very strong point in relation to this proposal. After all, in other industries, those engineers will probably be taken on by the works manager, not by an owner in some solemn capacity, as it were. There is nothing dishonourable in a man being taken on by the colliery manager.
It may be that the fine electrical engineers of today would have felt a tremor at being taken on by the old colliery manager of a generation ago, but it would be unfortunate if it were felt that there was something wrong in being properly taken on by the new type of manager we want to see.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not the practice of the manager to consult the owner—to consult the experts of the National Coal Board in electrical engineering—before he makes the appointment? Does not that meet part of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts)?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, and there will be no change.

Mr. Blyton: Is it not a fact that when there is a vacancy for a mechanical or electrical engineering position, it is advertised, and that the appointment is not made by the manager but by the various general managers, with perhaps the manager in attendance?

Mr. Lloyd: He makes the formal appointment, and the future position will be the same.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 9, line 37, leave out "may be reasonably required," and insert "is sufficient."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 15.—(NOTIFICATION TO DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF APPOINTMENTS BY MINE OWNERS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 10, line 32, to leave out "send." and to insert "give."
This is the first of a long series of Amendments which are all of a drafting character. Their object is to respond to the appeal made to us, not once or twice but on many occasions, to simplify the phraseology of the Bill and also to ensure consistency in the provisions governing notices. It would be for the convenience of the Committee, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you are agreeable, that this and the next three Amendments should be taken together.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: in page 10, line 32, leave out "a."

In line 33, leave out "stating," and insert:
of the making of the appointment and of.

in line 34, leave out "and, if," and insert:
stating, in a case where."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 17.—(KEEPING OF PLANS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 11, line 11, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert:
(a) accurate plans of—
(i) all the workings in the mine (whether abandoned or not) or such of them as ma) be prescribed: and
(ii) all other workings (whether abandoned or not) within the boundaries of the mine or within the prescribed distance outside any boundary of the mine (measured from an) point on the boundary in a straight line on any plane) or such of them as may be prescribed;

This Amendment is made in response to a rather technical but helpful suggestion proposed during the Committee stage by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster). He pointed out that if the vertical distance between workings in adjacent mines exceeds a certain figure, it ought not to be, necessary to have plans for those workings in each mine showing the workings in the other mine.
The object of this Amendment is to make that clear, and it will avoid the necessity of having those two sets of plans in each mine when there is no danger of an accident occurring owing to the amount of vertical distance.

Mr. Hale: Will the Minister explain one point about this sensible Amendment, which I am not criticising? What is the meaning of the words "or such of them as may be prescribed"? Do they not vitiate the whole proposal? It seems to me that if we put in those words we shall lose the utility of the Clause. These terms are very dear to Parliamentary draftsmen, because one feels that they are designed to cover the possibility of their having failed to think of something, but they seem to me to be negative.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: That is the way in which we prescribe the distance above which the workings need not be put into the plans.

Mr. Hale: In other words, we could prescribe none.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: But none would be prescribed if the workings were all outside the prescribed distance.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member cannot speak twice.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am not speaking twice. I rose to put a question to the Minister. I have sat through Report stages for nearly 10 years and have never before heard it suggested from the Chair that a mere intervention to elucidate a few words was a speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I mistook the hon. Gentleman, I thought he was making a speech. As long as he is only asking a question, he is in order.

Mr. Hale: I do not want to labour the point, but it may be important. After leaving out paragraph (a) we insert the words:
accurate plans of—(i) all the workings in the mine (whether abandoned or not) or such of them as may be prescribed.
That does not refer to distance or to size or to anything else. Again, paragraph (ii) says:
all other workings (whether abandoned or not) within the boundaries of the mine or within the prescribed distance …
That is, all other workings except such of them as may be prescribed. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary might look at this again.

Mr. Grenfell: It is quite possible that the words "all other workings" in paragraph (ii) may mean workings not in the mine in question, but in one in proximity to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 17, leave out "so far as practicable."

In line 19, leave out "and," and insert:
or, as the case may be.

In line 21, leave out from "may," to "require," in line 23.

In line 27, leave out "the workings, and insert:
workings delineated thereon.

In line 40, leave out "to which the plans relate," and insert:
delineated on the plans."—.[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 19.—(FAULTY PLANS.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Neal: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any person who causes or permits a plan to be in such a condition as to cause an inspector to make representations to the Minister pursuant to subsection (1) hereof shall be guilty of an offence under the Act.
An attempt has been made in Clauses 17 and 19 to ensure the keeping of accurate colliery plans. We feel, however, that the language in which those Clauses are drafted is hardly strong enough to ensure that inaccurate plans will not be kept and everybody with a practical knowledge of mining will

appreciate the dangers that may arise from inaccurate plans.
For instance, a manager who prepared and kept inaccurate plans, and then was removed from his position as manager, might place his successor in serious difficulties. Coal might be worked which it was not intended to work, with resulting grave losses in respect of the men working in the mine. Also, as a result of inaccurate plans coal which it was intended should be left as a barrier, might be removed and an inrush of water or gas might take place, endangering the lives of the men working there.
We believe that a deterrent is necessary to ensure that the plans of the manager shall be prepared and maintained in an accurate state. In view of the promise made by the Minister to look into this question on Report, we hope he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Tom Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: It is not possible to accept this Amendment for reasons which I will explain to the House. In the first place, there are provisions dealing with the matter in Clause 17, and also in Part II of the Coal Mines (Surveyors and Plans) General Regulations, 1952, which will be continued in operation under Clause 175 of the Bill. The suggestion that the matter should be carried further in the way proposed is. I think, one that, on reflection, the House would not like to put into operation. As the House will see, the offence is created by merely causing or permitting
a plan to be in such a condition as to cause an inspector to make representations to the Minister …
The offence is complete when the inspector has made representations to the Minister. Even if the Minister were wholly dissatisfied with the representations and came to the conclusion that the inspector was wholly unjustified in making them, under this Amendment the man would still be guilty of an offence.
We talk about using a steam hammer to crack a nut, but this is a rather severe proposal. There is also the consideration that if a person is deemed guilty of an offence in this manner the result will be that the contravention will be taken outside the penalty Clause, which is Clause 144. That would make it impossible to


proceed against the officials—the hierarchy as they might be called—so that it will be appreciated that this Amendment is really going too far.
If representations are made that there is anything in the regulations or in Clause 17 which could be tightened up, we will consider that, but I would ask the House not to impose this very severe penalty. I hope that hon. Members will not press it.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Clause 22.—(PROVISION OF SHAFTS AND OUTLETS IN COAL, &C., MINES.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move in page 15, line 21, to leave out from "section." to "for," in line 24, and to insert:
it shall not be lawful for any persons to be employed below ground in a mine of coal, stratified ironstone, shale or fireclay unless there are available.
I think it would be for the general convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we took the Amendment to line 30, the Amendment in page 16, line 23, and the two Amendments to line 30. They all hang, together.
This Clause deals with the provision of means of ingress and egress, about which we had a great deal of discussion on the Committee stage and the Amendments, which are rather substantial, are to give effect to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend during the course of those debates. The object of them is to limit the circumstances in which a manager may continue to employ persons below ground when only one shaft or outlet is available, at the same time safeguarding the position of workmen who claim damages in consequence of an action directly resulting therefrom.
The way in which it has been done, particularly in the second Amendment, is that where there is only one shaft or outlet available the manager can only continue to employ any workman who is already below ground until the end of his period of work. Hon. Members will appreciate that that covers the expression "shift," but the word "shift" is not appropriate in all cases. The "period of work," which is the greater including the lesser, is the term we use to clarify the position.
At the same time, the manager may have a period of up to 24 hours to employ below ground any person whose work is necessary to secure the safety of the men and the welfare of animals. I think that it will be agreed that that is an essential need. Persons employed in the safety of the mine are those normally called safety men. In addition, he can employ any person who is carrying out repairs necessitated by the accident.
Finally, I think I should call the attention of the House to the last of this series of Amendments. The first Amendment to line 30 is designed to meet the Amendment put down in the name of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) about damages. The way in which we have done this is to shift the onus of proof on to the defence. That is a matter upon which the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), whose absence from the House we all very greatly regret, was particularly interested and this Amendment—I think he would not mind me saying this—is in accord with the lines on which he himself was thinking. I hope he will be pleased to be informed that the House has adopted a suggestion which, in many ways, was made originally by him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 30, leave out subsection (2), and insert:
(2) Where the employment of persons in an area consisting of the whole or any part of a mine below ground would, apart from the following provisions of this subsection be, by virtue of the foregoing subsection, unlawful in consequence of a shaft or outlet having, in consequence of an accident or breakdown, become unavailable for affording to persons employed in that area ready means of ingress and egress, but the manager of the mine is satisfied with respect to that area or any part thereof that persons employed in that area or, as the case may be, that part thereof, will not for the time being be exposed to undue risk by reason of that shaft or outlet being unavailable as aforesaid, then if he—
(a) posts in a conspicuous position at the mine a notice specifying the accident or breakdown and the said area and stating that he is satisfied as aforesaid with respect to that area or, as the case may be, that part thereof and the reason why he is so satisfied: and
(b) sends, by the quickest means available, to the inspector for the district and the person, if any, for the time being nominated under the provisions of this Act relating to the notification of accidents to receive on behalf of the persons employed at the mine


notices under the said provisions, a message to the like effect as the notice mentioned in the foregoing paragraph;
there shall be excepted from the operation of the foregoing subsection—
(i) the employment in that area or, as the case may be, that part thereof, until the end of his period of work, of any person who was below ground in the mine at the time of the accident or breakdown;
(ii) the employment in that area or, as the case may be, that part thereof, until the expiration of the period of twenty-four hours beginning with the time at which the accident or breakdown occurred, of any person in work necessary for securing the satety of the mine or the welfare of animals employed therein or rendering that shaft or outlet again available for the purpose for which it was available immediately before the accident or breakdown:
Provided that nothing in paragraph (i) or (ii) of this subsection shall authorise the employment of any person at any time after the receipt by the manager of the mine of notification from an inspector that, in his opinion, that person should be withdrawn from the area or part of the area in question.

In page 16, line 23, leave out from "that," to first "of," in line 27, and insert:
the employment below ground in the mine, in accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed.

In line 30, at end, insert:
shall be excepted from the operation of subsection (1) of this section.

In line 30, at end, insert:
(5) In any claim against the owner or manager of a mine for damages, being a claim arising out of an accident caused by a decision of the manager made for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, the defendant shall, unless he proves that the manager was not negligent in making that decision, be liable in all respects as if the plaintiff had proved that the manager was negligent in making that decision—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 23.—(COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SHAFTS AND OUTLETS IN COAL, &C., MINES.)

Amendment made: In page 17, line 31, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 24.—(LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF PERSONS TO BE EMPLOYED AT COAL, &C., MINES IN PLACES WITH SINGLE EXITS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 18, line 22, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such provision as aforesaid shall be made with respect to a mine

by the Minister or an inspector unless the Minister or the inspector, as the case may be, is satisfied that no persons employed in the mine will be exposed to undue risk in consequence of the making of such provision.
This Amendment is a little more than consequential. It gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee and concerns relaxations of the general safety regulations which provide that there should be at least two independent ways of escape from a part of the mine in which more than nine persons are employed. When that is done it is laid down that a relaxation should not be authorised unless the single means of escape does not result in the persons being exposed to undue risk.
The question of undue risk is one about which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) was particularly anxious, and I hope we have met his point. There is also an Amendment down in his name dealing with "inconvenience," and if he formally moves it we shall be happy to accept it.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "risk," to insert "or inconvenience."
As the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, this Amendment deals with a mine where there is only one road out and where a miner takes a risk greater than the normal risk of his employment lt is generally recognised that if there is only one way out there is sure to be some upset in ventilation. We wish to put in the word "inconvenience," so that, in circumstances like that, we shall not have men working in very high humidity. For that reason we put down this Amendment, and I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting it.

Mr. Finch: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 27.—(PROVISION OF WINDING AND HAULAGE APPARATUS.)

Amendment made: In page 19, line 26, leave out first "or," and insert "and."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 29.—(SECURING OF SHAFTS AND STAPLE-PITS.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 20, line 23, to leave out "proceedings taken in respect of," and to insert "prosecution for."
This Amendment, together with the Amendments in page 23, line 6, in Clause 33, and page 26, line 35, in Clause 35, are all in implementation of an undertaking given by my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee, and the object is to remove any possible doubt that the proceedings referred to in these Clauses are criminal proceedings. Therefore, the word "prosecution" is being inserted instead of the words "proceedings taken in respect of." I think the substitution will remove all possible doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 32.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROADS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 22, line 1, after "as," to insert "either—(i)."
I think it would be helpful if we were able to refer also to the Amendment to page 22, line 3, after "inadvisable," to insert "for reasons of safety," and to the next Amendment, also in line 3, to insert the new paragraph (ii).
This Clause contains general provisions with respect to the construction and maintenance of roads, and, as it now stands, it requires that—
every such length of road made after the commencement of this Act shall be so made and maintained as to avoid sudden changes of direction, height, width and gradient
as far as is possible. There are some cases in which this action may be inadvisable, although not impracticable, and those hon. Members who sat in the Committee will recall that we had a great deal of discussion about this matter. My right hon. Friend undertook to look at the point again in order to try to find some way of defining the situation as between what was impracticable and what was inadvisable.
The new series of Amendments, the first of which I am now moving, is in implementation of his suggestion that the phraseology should indicate that it can be done so long as safety is not prejudiced, and that is what I think we have

achieved, because these Amendments provide that the requirement need not be complied with if it is inadvisable for reasons of safety or if it is unnecessary so to do. When they are read into the Clause, they make the matter quite clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 3, after "inadvisable." insert "for reasons of safety."

In line 3 at end, insert
or
(ii) it is unnecessary to do so.

In line 5 leave out
so far as is reasonably practicable.

In line 7 leave out
so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 22, to leave out lines 23 to 33, and to insert:
The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection.
This is one of a series of Amendments consequential on the acceptance of the new Clause dealt with yesterday—(Provisions as to references upon notices served by inspectors.)

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 33.—(PROHIBITION OF USE OF VEHICLES AND CONVEYORS IN ROADS NOT AFFORDING FREE MOVEMENT.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 22, line 43, to leave out the second "or."
This is the first of a different series of Amendments, and it would be convenient if we could, at the same time, consider the Amendments in page 22, line 45; page 23, line 3, and page 23, line 5.
The effect of these Amendments is to implement an undertaking which I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal), with whom I had a slight difference of opinion in Committee stage upon a technicality concerning mining implements. The object of these Amendments is to prohibit the rubbing or vehicles or haulage ropes against such things as electric cables which are attached to the roof or sides of transport roads, but at the same time not to prevent the operation of anything on which the ropes are intended to run, such as


pulleys or guide ropes. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover and myself now understand one another, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in agreement with these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 45, at the end, insert:
or anything in the road not provided for the purpose of controlling the vehicles or (in the case of vehicles which run as part of rope haulage apparatus) the ropes to which they are attached.

In page 23, line 3, leave out second "or."

In line 5, at end, insert "or anything in the road."

In line 6, leave out "proceedings taken in respect of," and insert "prosecution for."

In line 20, leave out from "road," to "and," in line 23, and insert:
which it was impracticable to prevent"—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 34.—(T RA NS PORT RULES.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 23, line 38, to leave out from "the," to "the," in line 39, and to insert:
avoidance of bodily injury being caused to person, by reason of.
This Amendment is moved in response to a request made to my right hon. Friend during the Committee stage, when my right hon. Friend gave an assurance that he would try to find a form of words which generalised what was in the Bill before, in regard to the safety of persons carried in or on vehicles and employed in connection with the transport system.
We have provided that the transport rules are concerned with the safety of any person who might suffer injury through the running of a vehicle. We think that that generalises the matter and widens the scope of the cover which was given. We believe it does so to the satisfaction of those hon. Members who asked that the matter should be dealt with.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 35, after "road." insert "in the mine."

In page 25, line 2, leave out "in the mine." and insert "therein."

In line 6, leave out from "as," to "that," in line 7, and insert "are appropriate for securing."

In line 14, leave out from the first "to," to "that," and insert "secure."

In line 26, leave out from notice to "stating," in line 28.

In line 36, at end, insert:
The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 35.—(PROVISIONS FOR SECURING SAFETY OF FOOT-PASSENGERS IN ROADS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 26, line 6, after the second "mine." to insert "or."
This Amendment goes together with the next two on the paper, in lines 8 and 10. They implement an undertaking which I gave in Committee to enable workmen's inspectors to travel on a road while gravity or mechanically propelled vehicles are in motion on that road.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 8, leave out "or a person."

In line 10, at end, insert:
or engaged in carrying out, by virtue of the provisions of this Act relating to workmen's inspections or of any such agreement as is therein mentioned, an inspection at the mine.

In line 35, leave out "proceedings taken," and insert "prosecution instituted."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 36.—(SAFETY MEASURES RELATING TO USE OF VEHICLES.)

Amendment made: In page 27, line 5, leave out "so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 27, line 8, to leave out from "prevent" to "and," in line 10, and to insert:
the occurrence of accidents due to vehicle, so used running away.
This Amendment is identical with the Amendment in page 62, line 38. The effect of them is to provide for the maintenance and use of safety devices to prevent vehicles from running away, and to define, rather better than in the Bill, the way in which it should be done. The safety device which is normally in use


does not, strictly speaking, prevent a runaway but brings the runaway to rest in the quickest possible time. The Amendments describe the purposes of the safety devices rather better than they are described at present in the Bill. The second Amendment is exactly the same, only it applies to quarries.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 27, line 11, leave out "so far as practicable."

In line 21, leave out "reasonably practicable," and insert "necessary."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks]

6.15 p.m.

Orders of the Day — Clause 40.— [SIGNALLING IN SHAFTS AND OUTLETS.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 28, line 40, to leave out "seventy-five." and to insert "fifty."
This Amendment, and the next five Amendments on the Paper, give effect to undertakings which I gave in Committee for improving the provisions dealing with signalling. The first Amendment reduces the distance, I think to the satisfaction of hon. Members opposite. The second Amendment provides that the signal shall be both audible and visible. The last Amendment of this series provides that the signal shall be in relation to a prescribed code, that is, worked out on an organised system.

Mr. Hale: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman is speaking on a further five Amendments, so perhaps I may range over the five rather than rising another five times to catch your eye.
I am glad that my hon. Friends have induced the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the size of the shaft from 75 feet to 50 feet. Where there is a double-decker cage with openings on both sides we are still liable to have accidents, from the very existence of the double-decker cage itself, without taking into account such things as depth. One has known of two or three serious accidents on that point. I apprehend that we need signalling in any case.
I recall the Chief Constable of Oldham once reporting an accident in a mine, caused in a very short shaft. Seven people were killed. The person in charge

of the winding apparatus was aged eight years. He was frightened by a rat and let go of the lever. That was many years ago, before nationalisation, but it was under a previous Tory Government.
I would ask a question on the drafting of these Amendments. What is the virtue of a double negative? Why have we to say something in the most obscure possible way? What is the point of saying
for requiring that the prescribed signals shall not be transmitted … otherwise than in the prescribed code,
instead of saying
for requiring that the prescribed signals shall be transmitted in the prescribed code"?
Why do we have to stick in the negative and try to produce the same result more obscurely?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Replying in the presence of so many hon. Members who were in the Committee, I must say that we have previously come up against a number of drafting difficulties. Many of us struggle manfully to do a job, but we have to recognise from time to time, when the more Christian sides of our nature come uppermost, that we are sometimes rather querulous about the need for these drafting devices. We realise, however, that we laymen depend very much upon the expert knowledge of the draftsman to assist us in putting our intentions into the words of an Act of Parliament.
I should not be prepared at the moment to take up a position different from that of the hon. Gentleman, nor am I sufficiently advised definitely to agree with him, but I can give the assurance that I will examine the matter between now and when the Bill goes to another place to see whether simpler and better words can be used to produce the intention about which we are all agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 28, line 41, after "transmitting," insert "audible and visible."

In page 29, line 5, leave out "seventy-five," and insert "fifty."

In line 6, after "transmitting," insert "audible and visible."

In line 13, at end, insert:
() Provision may be made by regulations—
(a) for requiring that the prescribed signals shall not be transmitted by means provided in pursuance of, or of regulations having


effect by virtue of, the foregoing subsection otherwise than in the prescribed code;
(b) for requiring the manager of a mine to secure the attendance thereat, at such times as may be prescribed, of persons for the purpose of transmitting signals by those means and receiving signals transmitted thereby.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 43.—(DUTY TO SECURE SAFETY OF ROADS AND WORKING PLACES.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 30, line 20, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to take such steps as may be necessary for securing that he is at all material times in possession of all information relevant for determining the nature and extent of any steps which it is requisite for him to take in order to discharge efficiently the duty imposed on him by the foregoing subsection.
This Clause imposes the duty to secure the safety of roads and working places. Subsection (2) provided a defence in legal proceedings for any alleged breach of subsection (1), but that defence is no longer required owing to the alteration which has been made in the new Clause which was introduced during the Committee stage, and which is now Clause 149. Therefore, that defence can come out of the Bill, and to that extent this Amendment is consequential.
I wanted to refer to it particularly because we have also changed round—and I think the House will approve—what was, in effect, an alternative form of defence, or part of the defence, and have made it into a duty imposed upon the manager to obtain all the relevant information in determining what needs to be done to keep the roads and working places secure. That means, in effect, that he has to know and apply the scientific principles of roof control.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 44.—(SYSTEMATIC SUPPORT IN COAL, SHALE AND FIRECLAY MINES.)

Amendments made: In page 31, line 13, leave out from "notice," to "specifying," in line 14.

In line 20, at end, insert:
The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 31, line 44, after which," to insert:
he has reason to believe.

This Amendment is moved in response to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to try to meet this problem, which is the right of the workman to judge for himself whether he should set a support or should take some action of that sort himself, or whether he should rely upon the deputy to tell him whether or not a support should be set. We had a considerable discussion about this in Committee, but were unable entirely to agree as to what was the right thing to do.
The upshot of the argument was that a man should have the right to set a support and should be justified in so doing if he has reason to believe that it is necessary. That is what this Amendment does. It gives effect to the promise given by my right hon. Friend by not referring to the supports which are necessary, because that would raise issues as to who was to decide whether they were necessary or not, but by referring to the supports which the workman himself has reason to believe should be set up.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 46.—(SUPPLY OF MATERIALS FOR SUPPORT.)

Amendment made: in page 32, line 16, leave out from "mine," to "to," in line 17.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 32, line 18, after "of," to insert "suitable."
This Amendment gives effect to something which we all desire. It makes sure that the workman shall be provided with the right size of props and material for support.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 47.—(WITHDRAWAL OF SUPPORT.)

Amendments made: In page 33, line after "by," insert or by virtue of."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 49.—(PROVISIONS AS TO SUPPORT RULES.)

Amendments made: In page 33, line 30, leave out from "notice." to "specifying," in line 32.

In line 39, at end, insert:
The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection.

In line 41, leave out "regulations." and insert "regulation."

In page 34, line 1, leave out first "the," and insert "a."[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 34, line 7, after "be," to insert "kept."
This is rather more than a drafting Amendment. Under the Bill as it stands, it is necessary to post a copy of the support rules, but, by inserting the word "kept," we have sought to emphasise that it is not only necessary to post them, but to keep them in a condition in which they can properly be read. That means that if they get damaged by dampness or from any other cause, another copy must be posted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Neal: I beg to move, in page 34, line 9, at the end, to insert:
and a copy of the rules shall be supplied to every workman in the district seven clear days before they come into operation.
Amid the mass of Amendments to which we have given approval during the last half-hour, it would not be difficult to provoke a long discussion on this Amendment. Clause 49 contains adequate provision for support about which we have very little complaint. It also provides that copies of support rules shall be kept in the office and posted at the pithead, and also that the rules shall be admissible as evidence in court, but there is no provision in the Clause to ensure that the man who has to use the supports to the roof shall receive a copy of these Jules. To familiarise the workman with the support rules with which he has to comply he should be supplied with a copy of them.
6.30 p.m.
Roof support is at once easily seen by the working miner as a very important feature of his daily duty. A man may be studying props or bars, or observing timbering rules in some way for years on end. When a change takes place, it is necessary for him to have a copy of the rules in order to know what duties he is expected to perform. If he violates these rules, a copy of which has not been placed in his possession, he is liable to be charged with an offence under the Bill. In those circumstances, we feel that the Minister ought to agree that the workmen should be given a copy seven clear days before the rules come into operation.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.
One realises that, with all the timbering rules in the world, risks are taken in the winning of coal. However many notices are posted there is no proof that the workman has read them. This is a very important matter. Those who read the Inspector's Annual Report will appreciate that quite a lot of accidents are still taking place on roadheads and coal faces. I honestly believe that if the timbering rules are supplied in the form of a booklet to the workman himself, he will realise what a responsibility is being placed upon him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) outlined the timbering position referred to by the Minister. Rules may be posted inside the offices, but it is perfectly true to say that weeks and weeks can go by without the workman going to the office. He goes there only if asked by a colliery official, or to make inquiries. What objection can the Minister have to issuing a small booklet to a workman?
Some of these workmen are observing a code of timbering which may have been in operation for years but which may now be changed by consultation. It a change comes about, it takes more than a notice to make the workman appreciate its effect on the support rules. To give real strength to the meaning of roof support, it would be better, and in the interests of all concerned, that the workman himself should have the timbering rules so that he may peruse them at his leisure and not depend on seeing a notice—which may be damaged or not readable—in the road of a mine.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) already know that we have great sympathy with the views which they have expressed. In case of any misunderstanding, I should like to say one thing. The support rules, of course, are required to be posted not only in the manager's office but at the entrance to every district. They are therefore available for inspection and reading, but we agree with the hon. Gentlemen that that is not sufficient. The workman needs to have a booklet which he can put in his pocket to study at home and to carry about with him.
The hon. Member for Normanton said that he did not see why there should be any objection to issuing a small booklet. That is very much in the words of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend when this matter was discussed upstairs. He said then that he would try to find words to make it clear, no doubt by a regulation, that workmen should be given a commonsense, short document containing what the workmen ought to know about the rules in the district. That is still our view. I am afraid that it has not been possible up to now to produce such a document. It would be almost impossible to define such a document in a statutory and legal way, but it can be done perfectly well administratively and by regulation.

Mr. A. Roberts: If there is a change in the timbering rules, does the offer still stay good?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Most essentially. The most dangerous thing in the world would be to have a booklet containing false information, so that if any change were made it would have to be notified.

Mr. Mason: In line 7, on page 34, it is stated that a copy of the rules:
… shall be posted at the entrance to the district …
As there is more than one entrance, would it not be much better to say that a copy of the support rules shall be posted at each entrance of the district?

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Perhaps we could reconsider that. It is rather a different point.

Mr. Blyton: I fail to see why the Minister cannot accept this Amendment. This course has been followed in the past at many collieries. When this Bill becomes an Act, the support rules have to be submitted to the inspector for acceptance. When they are accepted, they become the rules of the colliery. That is another reason why the men should have a copy of the rules.
In the North there is the cavelling system under which the men change their places every three months. It is therefore necessary that copies of the timbering rules should be available, because different rules of timbering apply in different parts of the pit. With regard to the notice to be posted in the entrance

to the district, one must remember the dust. It does not take long for a notice to become so dilapidated that one cannot see it.
I therefore think it essential to impress upon the Minister the need to make it an obligation that a copy of the timbering rules should be given to the men in the district. If a man has a copy of the rules sanctioned by the Minister which he can study at home, he can have no defence if he does not comply with them.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I want to make it quite clear that it is my intention in another place to propose words that will mean that every man in a particular district will receive the timbering rules, or a proper abstract of the timbering rules. of that district. I must apologise to the House if the present wording does not seem to meet the case. As I think the Members of the Committee know, the draftsmen have been working very hard to give effect to all the undertakings which we gave in Committee. This is one case where we just have not succeeded in getting the right words at the moment, but we will put them in, because we realise the importance of the point.

Mr. Neal: If the Parliamentary Secretary had been as explicit as the Minister, we should have had no need to continue the discussion. In view of the assurance given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 50.—(DUTY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE VENTILATION.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 34, line 23, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the general application of the foregoing subsection—
(a) ventilation produced in a part of a mine shall be deemed for the purposes of that subsection not to be adequate for the purpose of diluting carbon dioxide so as to render it harmless unless the amount thereof in the general body of the air in that part of the mine is not more than one and a quarter per cent. by volume:
(b) ventilation produced in a part of a mine shall be deemed for the purposes of that subsection not to be adequate for the purpose of providing air containing a sufficiency of oxygen unless the amount of oxygen in the general body of the air in that part of the mine is not les,; than nineteen per cent. by volume:


and regulations may provide that, without prejudice to the general application of that subsection, ventilation produced in a part of a mine shall be deemed for the purposes of that subsection not to be adequate for the purpose of diluting a prescribed gas (other than carbon dioxide) that is inflammable or noxious so as to render it harmless unless the amount thereof in the general body of the air in that part of the mine is less than the prescribed percentage by volume.
This rather voluminous Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to include in the Bill specific percentages of oxygen and carbon dioxide. It is to a great extent in conformity with the 1911 Act. I doubt whether the Committee would wish to go through it in detail, but the amended subsection will enable rules to be made prescribing concentrations of either inflammable or noxious gases other than carbon dioxide.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 34. line 41, leave out:
so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 35, line 1, to leave out subsection (4).
If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Committee, perhaps I might mention also the Amendment in page 35, line 34, to insert a new subsection.
This Amendment seeks to do with ventilation what we did just now in regard to another matter on an earlier Clause. The defence provided by the subsection is no longer necessary as a result of the introduction of Clause 149, and therefore it has been deleted. At the same time, the secondary element in the defence has been converted into a duty imposed on the manager, so that the effect is now that in the event of any failure of the ventilation, the manager has a duty to see that no unauthorised person enters the affected part of a mine, except to restore the ventilation. I think those words and intentions are in accordance with the wishes of the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made. In page 35, line 28, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c), and insert:
(b) in any waste.

In line 34, at end, insert:
() Where, in any part of a mine required by the foregoing provisions of this secction to be ventilated, the ventilation is interrupted or ceases to be adequate for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section, it shall be the duty of the manager of the mine to secure that, until the ventilation is restored, access to that part of the mine is so restricted as to prevent from entering it any person not authorised to do so and no person is permitted to remain in or pass through it except for the purpose of restoring the ventilation or in a case of emergency.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 51.—(POWER OF INSPECTOR TO REQUIRE IMPROVEMENT OF VENTILA TION.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 35, line 35, to leave out Clause 51.
We have already inserted a new Clause which gives inspectors improved and more general powers for the improvement of ventilation.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 52.—(PROVISIONS AS TO MEANS OF VENTILATION.)

Amendments made: In page 36, line 35, after "by," insert "section fifty of."

In line 37, leave out "section fifty of this Act," and insert "that section."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 37, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no exemption shall be granted by regulations made by virtue of this subsection unless the Minister is satisfied that no persons employed in mines of the class to which the regulations apply will be exposed to undue risk in consequence of the granting of the exemption, and no exemption shall be granted under this subsection by an inspector in the case of any mine unless he is satisfied that no persons employed in that mine will be exposed to undue risk in consequence of the granting of the exemption.
This provision deals with ventilation, and this Amendment is in response to an undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave in Committee to ensure that exemptions, whether by regulation or notice by an inspector, shall only he granted when the Minister or the inspector is satisfied that no undue risk will result. I think this Amendment achieves that object and meets the point.

Amendment agreed to

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 37, line 25, at the end, to insert:
or, except with the consent of an inspector, to release in a mine compressed air for the purpose thereby of diluting or removing inflammable or noxious gas.
This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking that I gave in Committee on a point which was raised by the hon. Members for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) that we should not allow the use of compressed air for improving bad ventilation.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 53.—(PREVENTION OF LEAKAGE OF AIR BETWEEN AIRWAYS.)

Mr. Neal: I beg to move, in page 37, line 38, to leave out "nine hundred," and to insert "four hundred and fifty."
It may be necessary to preface my remarks by saying that this is an official Opposition Amendment and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) and I are not responsible for any remarks to the contrary that may be made in the subsequent debate which may follow.
During the Committee stage a very long discussion took place on this feature of this Clause. The Minister will recall that we tried to extract from him a compromise with regard to the distance from the coalface where leakages of air should be permitted between the intake and the return. Our Amendment is a repetition of those efforts.
The leakage of air between the intake airway and the return is, in some circumstances, inevitable. Years ago people used to talk about uncontrolled leakage, but nowadays, of course, a new factor has entered into the matter of leakage between the intake and the return, and that is controlled leakage. Pipes are passed between the intake and the return for the very good purpose of extracting methane, and we have no intention of deterring managements from undertaking those operations.
We do think, however, that to permit managements to allow uncontrolled leakage taking place 900 feet from the coalface is too great a distance in the interests of safety. We should be much happier if the Minister would accept the compromise which we propose in our

Amendment of 450 feet as the maximum distance.

Mr. T. Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
We had a lengthy discussion in Committee on this question of 300 yards. This figure is expressed in feet in the Clause, but we prefer to express it in yards. We suggest that the distance should be 150 yards from the coalface. We have tried to compromise with the Minister and his expert advisers; and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why we should allow a distance greater than 100 yards from the coalface. It appears that the expert technical advisers think it would be better if the distance were 300 yards.
As practical miners, we on these benches are aware that when mine workings advance rapidly, as they do in these days, fissures appear in the roof and, as a result, there occur leakages which, with the best will in the world, cannot be controlled completely. But to allow a mine manager to escape his responsibility of concentrating the ventilation upon the coalface to the extent of 300 yards is too much. There ought to be more vigilance in maintaining proper ventilation in that part of the main intake.
If a healthy atmosphere is to be maintained at the point where the men have to work, leakages must be prevented right the way through, from the bottom to the downcast shaft to the coalface. Every cubic foot of air that is allowed to escape, short-circuit itself and go back to the upcast shaft is detrimental to the health of the workers at the coalface. My personal opinion is that the best distance is 100 yards, but, in order to ensure some improvement in the ventilation of our mines, we are prepared to accept a distance of 150 yards. One of the reasons dominating our minds is that many of our seams are a tremendous distance inbye. The further one goes inbye the warmer it becomes and the more difficult it is to convey ventilation to the point required. As we are now engaged on greater takes we are anxious that proper ventilation shall be maintained for the men at the coalface. We hope that the Minister and his Department will see the wisdom of the Amendment and accept it.
Not only are we going inbye to the extent of 2½, 3 and 4 miles, but in some pits the temperatures are now reaching 110 degrees. I live near the deepest mine in the


country. It is 1,000 yards deep to begin with, and it is very hot at the pit bottom. I know that we have not yet reached the stage of refrigerating our ventilation, but it will have to come eventually. This pit, which is 1,000 yards deep, is now three miles inbye, and the gravitation is to the south. When the men reached the coalface after walking for three miles inbye they have to work in a temperature between 100 and 110 degrees in the shade.
These men cannot work for more than 5 hours out of the 7½ owing to the excessive heat. Working in the mines ever) working day they are losing from 7½ lb. to 11 lb. in weight. This is an added reason why the Amendment should be accepted. The cooler the ventilation at the point where the men work the better it is for them. I emphasise the importance of the Amendment once again, and I hope that the Minister will accept it, so that we can ensure that the ventilation system at the point where the men work is adequate.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I could say quite a lot on this subject, which has been discussed at great length, but I think the most acceptable and most eloquent remark that I can make is that I am very glad to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In page 37, line 39, to leave out from the word "in." to the end of line 40, and insert:
a straight line on any plane, or such other distance, so measured (whether greater or less than nine hundred feet) as an inspector may fix in any particular case."—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Proposed words amended, by leaving out "nine hundred," and inserting "four hundred and fifty" instead thereof—[Mr. Neal]—and, as amended, there inserted in the Rill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 54.—(BAROMETERS.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 38, line 1, to leave out:
There shall be provided and maintained.
I think it would be convenient to discuss this and the following three Amendments together, because they give effect

to a series of undertakings that I gave during the Committee stage. First, we wish to provide that barometers shall be placed in conspicuous places where the men are used to seeing them and where they have been provided hitherto under the terms of the 1911 Act. We also seek power to prescribe for the provision of thermometers and hygrometers in appropriate circumstances.
Besides wanting to continue the provision of barometers in places where the men are used to seeing them, we want to make progress and to provide for rather more advanced scientific instruments, not necessarily placed in the old positions, but in positions where they will be most effective. For example, the new instrument for measuring humidity will not necessarily be placed only at the bottom of the upcast, as it was in the past. It will also be placed in the damp working places. This series of Amendments provides satisfactorily for these new arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 38, line 4, after "present," insert:
there shall be provided in a conspicuous place and in such a position as to be easily read by the persons employed at the mine.

In line 5, at end, insert:
(2) Provision may be made by regulations for requiring—
(a) the provision at any such mine as aforesaid of a barometer of a prescribed kind in addition to that required by the foregoing subsection to be provided thereat;
(b) the provision at the prescribed places in mines of the prescribed instruments for measuring the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere.

In line 6, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 7. and insert:
Every instrument provided at a mine in pursuance of, or of regulations having effect by virtue of, the foregoing provisions of this section shall be properly maintained, and regulations may require that any such instrument.—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 55.—(LIGHTING.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 38, line 13, to leave out from "provision," to the end of line 21. and to insert:
of
(i) suitable and sufficient lighting (whether natural or artificial) in every part of the mine above ground in or through which persons work or pass;


(ii) suitable and sufficient artificial lighting in every part of the mine below ground in or through which persons work or pass, other than a part in which the installation of artificial lighting is inadvisable for reasons of safety or is unnecessary because of the amount of light emitted by lamps normally carried by persons who work in or pass through it or for any other reason.
I move the Amendment in accordance with a promise made by my right hon. Friend in Committee to try to find some way of introducing the words "suitable and sufficient" with reference to lighting. We had a good deal of discussion about the degree and method of lighting, particularly below ground. It was agreed that it was not necessary, even though it might be practicable, to light places where the miners were not necessarily working but might be passing to and fro and which were sufficiently lit already by miners' lamps. We have, by this Amendment, introduced the phrase we were particularly asked to introduce, "suitable and sufficient," and I think the House will consider that by the redrafting we now have this provision in a more agreeable and a simpler fashion.

Mr. T. Brown: I want to express my appreciation, and that of my hon. Friends, of the Minister's response in this matter. There is reliable evidence that has been revealed to us in the last few years that improved lights underground has reduced the number of cases of nystagmus. I hope that when the Minister makes regulations he will see to it that every conceivable thing is done to make it possible for the best lighting that can be procured to be installed. We appreciate that there is a desire on the Minister's part to improve lighting.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I would add another word of thanks for the Amendment. Improved lighting does reduce the incidence of nystagmus and generally contributes to the prevention of all accidents, and it also helps to increase production, and, of course, contributes to the general welfare and happiness in the pits. One of the first things the National Coal Board did when it was set up was to make large-scale experiments with fluorescent lighting.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 38, line 23, after "lighting," insert "thereat."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 56.—(PERMITTED LIGHTS.)

Amendments made: In page 39. leave out lines 24 and 25.

In line 30, at end, insert:
and the provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to any such notice."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 39, line 36, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no exemption from the said provisions of a part of a mine of coal shall be granted after the expiration of the period of four years beginning with the commencement of this Act or shall be granted or renewed before the expiration of that period otherwise than so as to expire not later than the expiration of that period.
This is a very important Amendment and also one which I think the Committee will welcome. It is to ensure that after four years from the beginning of the operation of the Bill there should be no mixed light mines left.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 60.—(PROHIBITION OF POSSESSION OF SMOKING MATERIALS IN CERTAIN MINES AND PARTS OF MINES.)

Amendment made: In page 41, line 6, leave out "not practicable," and insert "impracticable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to move, in page 41, line 25, at the end, to insert:
A notice conspicuously displayed and setting out clearly the general intention of this section of the Act shall be posted and properly maintained at all parts of the pit used as means of access to the place where the search is made.
This is an important issue regarding contraband. We want to make sure it is not taken into the pits. From time to time fatalities occur because some such forbidden article has been used in the mine. It is not good enough to allow a workman to take something down the mine, search him at the bottom, and then penalise him. I have always been a believer in prevention. We all believe that prevention is better than cure. Therefore, we suggest that there should be conspicuous notices warning the men beforehand, and we also suggest that they should be illuminated where necessary.
While the Minister has good intentions in the matter, we are of opinion that the Clause can be strengthened by such a


provision as is suggested in the Amendment. I think it is better that people should be warned beforehand rather than merely punished afterwards, especially if they have not been warned. I should like to see at all pitheads glaring notices telling the men to search their pockets to remove all contraband and warning them of the consequences of taking contraband down. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
We are not asking the National Coal Board or the Ministry to incur any further expense. The Amendment would insure that men about to descend the shaft would be warned by notices that they will be examined for contraband. One of the striking features of present-day mining is this. We used to walk a short distance to the pit bank, but now we have considerable distances to walk from the lamp room to the pit bank, and there is often a verandah from the pit baths to the pithead. This increases the likelihood of men carrying contraband about with them forgetting that they have it. I am sure that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary understand that we move the Amendment with the desire to ensure that no contraband shall be taken underground simply for the want of notification to the men.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I entirely agree with the purpose behind the Amendment but, as is so often the case when hon. Members have not the advantage of the official draftsmen, I am advised that these words are not the best words for achieving that purpose. I will undertake to introduce words to give effect to the intention, which is to have a big notice in the best possible place bearing the kind of slogan which the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) mentioned— "Search your pockets. No smoking beyond this point."
I am advised that the words in the Amendment are not the right words for an Act of Parliament, but I can find the right words and will undertake to insert them into the Bill in another place.

Mr. A. Roberts: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 62.—(ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRICAL APPARATUS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 43, to leave out lines 1 to 7, and to insert:
,shall make provision for requiring that, where the amount of inflammable gas in the general body of the air in a part of a mine below ground exceeds such percentage by volume (which shall not exceed one and a quarter) as may be prescribed, the supply of electricity to all apparatus in that part of the mine (other than such apparatus as may be prescribed, being apparatus as to which the Minister is satisfied that the continued use thereof will not involve undue risk), shall be cut off, and may make provision for requiring the cutting off, in such circumstances, other than as aforesaid, as may be prescribed, of the supply of electricity to apparatus below ground in a mine.
This Amendment implements an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in Committee to provide in the Bill itself that the regulations shall not fix a higher figure than 1¼ per cent. as the percentage of inflammable gas in the general body of the air. The regulations will say that if such a percentage is exceeded, the electricity must automatically be cut off. This Amendment gives effect to that undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 43, line 8, to leave out "or a part of a mine."
This Amendment and the four following Amendments are all of a drafting character, but they clarify the Clause and also emphasise the fact that the inspector's powers for the prohibition and restriction of the use of electricity in these circumstances are in relation to its use underground. Substantially, they are drafting Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 43, line 8, leave out "or part of a mine."

In line 9, leave out "in that mine or part," and insert:
below ground therein or in any part thereat below ground.

In line 12, leave out from "opinion." to "and," in line 13.

In line 15, after "electricity," insert "below ground."

In line 15, after "or," insert "in."

In line 17, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 18, and insert:
The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by Inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection and any such notice."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 65.—(FIRE-FIGHTING AND RESCUE OPERATIONS.)

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 45, line 38, at the end, to insert:
and, in particular, the provision at mines of adequate supplies of water for use in case of fire.
We are now dealing with fire-fighting and rescue operations. It was pointed out in Committee that, amongst all the appliances which had to be provided, there was no reference to water itself. It was felt desirable that there should be some such reference, and we have accordingly introduced the Amendment to make provision for adequate supplies of water.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 67.—(DUST PRECAUTIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 46, line 19, leave out from "mine." to "the," in line 20.

In line 23. at end, insert "is minimised."

Amendment proposed: In page 46, line 30, leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
(a) that the entry of the dust into the air or its accumulation in any place in circumstances in which its accumulation in that place might be dangerous or harmful is minimised by means of steps in that behalf taken as near as possible to the point of origin of the dust—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Blyton: This is a very important Amendment which concerns two diseases in the mining industry, silicosis and pneumoconiosis. I want to thank the Minister for having re-drafted the Clause so that it is much better than when it was originally inserted in the Bill. The Clause now lays down provisions for suppression and is much better than its original form, about which we argued in Committee. I think it is right that we should thank the Minister for the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 46, line 36, leave out so far as is reasonably practicable."

In line 42, leave out "so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 47, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(3) Regulations may impose upon managers of mines such requirements with respect to the use thereat of prescribed apparatus and the taking thereat of prescribed steps as it may appear to the Minister requisite or expedient to impose for the purpose of attaining any of the objects mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section; and regulations having effect by virtue of this subsection may provide either that compliance therewith by the manager of a mine is to be taken, either without qualification or to a prescribed extent, as compliance with all or any of the requirements of the said provisions or that compliance with the regulations by the manager of a mine is not necessarily to be taken as compliance with any of the said requirements
We are now dealing with dust precautions, as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said—and we greatly appreciate what he said. It was impressed upon us that we should introduce words to define the means which should be used for suppressing dust, and proposals were made for quoting specific methods, such as water infusion. My right hon. Friend promised to consider the matter.
We have considered it very carefully indeed, and our conclusion is that the state of dust suppression and our general knowledge about dust and the methods of suppressing it are so much in the development stage and are passing so swiftly from one phase to another, as knowledge and experience increase, that it would not be desirable to put into the Bill specific methods, which would be of an immutable character. That would necessarily slow down the pace of development, experience and research, because it would be said that those were the methods laid down for use by an Act of Parliament.
We have therefore adopted the proposal contained in the Amendment whereby they shall be prescribed in regulations. The regulations are not of such an immutable character as the Bill; they can be changed from time to time to keep Pace with the research, knowledge and development which goes on in the industry. We hope and believe that the provision contained in the Amendment will meet the criticism which was raised in


Committee and will be agreeable to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 68.—-(DUTY OF MINE OWNERS AND MANAGERS TO SEEK EVIDENCE OF PROXIMITY OF DISUSED WORKINGS, WATER-BEARING STRATA, &C.)

Amendments made: In page 47, line 6, leave out from beginning, to "such," in line 8, and insert:
In the case of every mine, the owner thereof and the manager thereof shall each he charged with the duty—
(a) of taking.

In line 9, leave out from "information," to "which," in line 11.

In line 22, leave out from beginning, to "for," and insert:
of taking such steps as may be necessary."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 47, line 27, to leave out from beginning, to "forthwith." and insert:
In the case of every mine, the owner thereof and the manager thereof shall each he charged with the duty.
This Amendment and the next four Amendments go with one another, and perhaps we might consider them together. These, again, are in response to an undertaking which I gave in Committee, namely, that there should be a reciprocal obligation upon the owner and the manager to exchange information which either of them might obtain which might lead to knowledge of water hazards in a mine.
In the original Bill the obligation was on the owner to inform the manager, and this Amendment makes it reciprocal, so that the manager must also inform the owner, in case the owner may be able to take advantage of the knowledge in another mine.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 36, leave out from beginning, to "particulars," and insert:
of furnishing to the other."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 69.—(DUTY OF MINE OWNERS AND MANAGERS TO ASCERTAIN THICKNESS OF STRATA BETWEEN WORKINGS AND SURFACE WATER.)

Amendments made: In page 48, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "forthwith." and insert:

In the case of every mine, the owner thereof and the manager thereof shall each he charged with the duty.

In line 3, leave out "to furnish," and insert:
of furnishing to the other.

In line 4, leave out:
to the manager of the mine."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 70.—(GENERAL DUTY TO TAKE PRECAUTIONS AGAINST INRUSHES OF GAS, WATER. ETC.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 48, line 12, to leave out subsection (2).
This and the next two Amendments are consequential upon the introduction of the new Clause 149.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 71.—(POWERS OF INSPECTOR WITH RESPECT TO DANGER FROM INRUSHES OF GAS, WATER, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 48, line 34, leave out "subsection (1) of."

In page 49, line 17, leave out "subsection (1) of."

In line 35, leave out subsection (31. and insert:
(3) The provisions of Part XV of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under either of the foregoing subsections, and any such notice shall, if it is so specified therein, become operative forthwith.—[Mr Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 72.—(WITHDRAWAL OF WORKMEN IN CASES OF DANGER.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 50, line 15, to leave out paragraph (b), and to insert:
(b) unless he is the manager of the mine, he shall, forthwith after complying with the foregoing paragraph, give, to his immediate superior and the person in charge of any other part of the mine appearing to him to be likely to be affected, notice of the fact that inflammable gas is present at the said place in a concentration deemed as aforesaid to be excessive.
This is with regard to withdrawal of workmen in the case of danger. The Clause requires that if a person takes a prescribed action in withdrawing persons in a case of danger, he must immediately notify his superior. The object of the Amendment is to redraft the Clause to make the phraseology more clear, and. at the same time, to make it clear that the manager does have to report.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in line 22, to leave out from beginning, to "he," in line 23, and to insert:
so soon after complying with paragraph (b) of this subsection (or, in a case where that paragraph does not apply, paragraph (a) of this subsection) as it is possible so to do without undue risk.
We now come to a series of Amendments which are designed to provide that the examination of the affected area shall not be made too soon, but only as soon as reasonable, having regard to safety considerations. Then follows the Amendment which has the effect that the report shall be made, not at once, but as soon as reasonable, because it is most important that the actual work of safety should be carried on before the report is made.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 51, line 12, leave out "As soon as reasonably practicable after," and insert. "Where."

In line 15, leave out from "it," to "particulars." in line 17, and insert:
shall record in a book to be provided for that purpose by the owner of the mine.

In line 20, leave out from "of," to "and," in line 22, and insert, "subsection (1) of this section."

In line 33, leave out from "than," to end of line 36, and insert:
two per cent. by volume or, if a greater percentage by volume (not exceeding two and a half) is prescribed, that greater percentage.

In line 40, leave out from "than," to "or," in line 44, and insert:
one and a quarter per cent. by volume, or if a smaller percentage by volume is prescribed, that smaller percentage."—[Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd.]

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 51, line 45, to leave out "a gas cap," and to insert "an indication of gas."
This gives effect to my undertaking to find a substitution for the words "a gas cap," in relation to a discovery of gas.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 73.—(DUTY OF WORKMEN TO DEAL WITH, OR REPORT, DANGER.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 52, line 12, after "his," to insert "normal."
This is to make sure that the workman will only be affected in this case in regard to the normal scope of his duties.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 75.—(FENCING OF EXPOSED PARTS OF MACHINERY.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 52, line 42, to leave out subsection (2).
This Amendment is consequential on Clause 149.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 77.—(AIR, GAS AND STEAM CONTAINERS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 53, line 19, to leave out "and maintained," and to insert "maintained and used."
This Amendment relates to the construction, installation and maintenance of certain apparatus. It was considered desirable to add the words maintained and used."

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 20, leave out:
so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 80.—(SAFE MEANS OF ACCESS AND SAFE MEANS OF EMPLOYMENT.)

Amendments made: In page 54, line 13, leave out:
so far as is reasonably practicable.

In line 21, have out:
so far as is reasonably practicable."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 83.—(PENALISATION OF NEGLIGENT ACTS OR OMISSIONS AND UNAUTHO RISED REMOVAL, &C., OF ARTICLES.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 55, line 6, to leave out "employed at a mine."
This Amendment and the next deal with a point which caused doubt in the Committee. The doubt was whether in the Bill as drafted the expression
a person employed in a mine
included a manager or under-manager. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that a manager or under-manager is included within the provisions of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 55, line 7, after "does." insert "at a mine."

In line 8, leave out "employed."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in line 9, after "do." to insert "at a mine."
This is consequential on the last Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 11, leave out "so employed," and insert "thereat."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 84.—-(FIRST-AID.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 55, line 18, to leave out Clause 84.
We adopted yesterday a new Clause which deals with this subject in a more elaborate and improved way. Therefore, we ought now to leave out this Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 85.—(MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS.)

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 55, line 27, to leave out "or seeking employment."

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would be convenient to take the next two Amendments also in line 29, leave out "either absolutely or."

In line 38 at end, insert:
(2) A true copy of the report of such medical examination shall be furnished to the person concerned or to his representative.
(3) The regulations shall provide that art, person examined pursuant to the foregoing provision of this section shall have the right of appeal against the contents of the medical report and against any prohibition made pursuant thereto.
(4) Provision may be made by regulations for requiring any persons seeking employment at mines for the first time to submit themselves for medical examination.

Mr. Finch: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
The Clause gives power for the making of regulations by which those employed in the industry will be medically examined. I do not know in how many other industries regulations of this kind apply, but that is what the Clause provides for miners. Not only that, but having been examined, the miners can be given notice of dismissal as a result of the words "either absolutely or" in the Clause. In any case, if the medical

examiner employed by the National Coal Board is of opinion that a miner is fit only for light employment he can certify that he is incapacitated and the miner may be given other suitable employment or he may not.
Our proposal that the words "either absolutely or," should be deleted, that if there are to be medical examinations there shall be a right of appeal for the workman, that the medical report shall be sent to the workman's representative or medical adviser, and that if there is disagreement the matter can be forthwith referred to an independent authority or medical board selected for the purpose.
We have to be very careful, on the question of medical examinations. We are very concerned about output. Coal production is going down to some extent through loss of manpower. If there are to be rigid medical examinations of men who have worked in the industry for 20 or 25 years and if from time to time doctors say that a man is not fit, unless there is a right of appeal to an independent tribunal or authority to decide these matters there is likely to be further depletion in manpower, with all its evil consequences to the production of coal. We are justified, therefore, in pressing the Amendment.
If there is to be medical examination, it should be subject to appeal if the workman's medical adviser or anybody on his behalf feels that there is injustice. We all know that medical men are apt to differ about a man's condition. Is the National Coal Board doctor to be the final arbiter in cases of this kind? We feel that a true copy of the medical examination report should be furnished to the man's personal representative. Surely, a man who has given his life to the industry is entitled to ask that his own doctor should look into the case to ascertain whether the certification by the Coal Board doctor is justified.
It is true that in South Wales, if not in the industry generally, there are men working in the industry who are suffering from the early stages of pneumoconiosis. After medical examination they are returning to the industry to specified conditions of employment. That is all very well, and perhaps it is necessary to have medical examination in certain circumstances, but we suggest that the workman should have the right of appeal.

Mr. Blyten: I beg to second the Amendment.
The House is making very good progress and I hope that the Minister will meet us handsomely on this Clause so that the harmony may continue. We are not against the medical examination of new entrants into the pits. The industry is entitled to examine new entrants so that the mines can get the best available labour. We are not against the 12 months' probationary period.
What we object to in the Clause is that if, say, a man has worked at the pit for 20 years and the pit closes and he goes to another pit for work, within the meaning of the Clause he is seeking employment and could be medically examined. The Coal Board doctor at the second pit may certify that he is not fit for any employment, with the result that he is thrown out of the industry. We are not prepared to accept such a position. We believe that if a man has spent a lifetime in the industry, and he is changed from one colliery to another, he is not leaving his employment but must be regarded as a man who is still within the industry.
The second point to which I wish to refer is that we cannot give to the National Coal Board doctors the absolute power to determine whether a man shall go to work in a pit or not. We do not question the medical qualifications of those making these examinations, but surely if a man is certified by an N.C.B. doctor as being no longer fit for underground employment and the man thinks he is, he should have a right of appeal to some independent doctor to determine whether or not the N.C.B. doctor is right.
We ask the Minister, even at this late stage in the Bill's progress, to redraft this Clause so as to protect the man who has worked for years in the industry and give him the right of appeal against an adverse decision by an N.C.B. doctor. We urge him not to allow one man to determine whether a miner shall lose his livelihood at the pit. If we can get those two points accepted, then we shall be satisfied. We are not concerned here with entrants into the industry, who should be medically examined, but with those who have spent their lives in coal-mining.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I think I ought to say a word at this stage. I accept the

two principles put forward in these Amendments. I agree that the medical examination which might result in somebody leaving the industry should be confined substantially to new entrants. There is the point about a probationary period which we all understand, but that is highly technical. It is one of the reasons we have not succeeded in bringing forward suitable Amendments at this stage.
Secondly, there is the question of appeal. Considering the importance of the issues involved, it seems to me that, when a man may be made to change his job, there must be an appeal. One man cannot decide the fate of another without some kind of appeal, and, therefore, I can say quite briefly that I can accept the principles laid down in these Amendments.
I can also tell the House that I would have done this already if it were not for the existing regulations and the desirability not to invalidate them. That was one of the difficult drafting problems which we had to face. Now that we have done so much of the rest of it and the House has approved of so many of the other proposals, we shall have more time to devote to this and we shall succeed in finding a solution to it.

Mr. T. Brown: I am delighted to know that the Minister has gone another length of rails as we say in the pits. We had a very long discussion in Standing Committee on 4th May on this point, and we were sustained extensively by the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on the desirability of appeals and on the men having to submit themselves to medical examination. At that time I gave an example of a concrete case of how these medical examinations, in fact, affect men who are seeking employment in another pit. We all accept the fact that in the days that lie ahead many of the men now working will be redundant and the working of old collieries will come to an end. Developments that are taking place will absorb at least those who are 100 per cent. capable of working underground, but the difficulty will arise when we come to the employment of men who have sustained accidents while working in the pits. We want to safeguard the interests of those men.
7.45 p.m.
The case that I have in mind came to my own doorstep when I was in charge of men in the pits. On 3rd February, 1937, the four pits of which I was lodge secretary closed down completely. Those who were 100 per cent. physically and mentally capable could get work, but those men who had sustained accidents at the pits where they had worked all their life could not find employment. There were 127 men. Had those pits continued in commission producing coal they would have continued to work there, but because of the medical examination, to which they had to submit themselves and which revealed their partial but slight incapacity, they could not get work at all.
We have come a long way on the question of medical examinations. We say that the new entrants into the pits must be medically examined and, if need be, we shall have to have periodical examinations. What we are seeking is that when a man is medically examined and the decision goes against him, he should have the right of appeal to some one higher up. That is what happened from 1935 when the industry was still in private hands. A man who was turned down by the company's doctor went to another doctor by way of appeal and invariably we got those men through. I am glad that the Minister is prepared to consider the principles embodied in these Amendments.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I should like to say a word or two here, because I feel rather strongly about this matter. Unfortunately, I have had as much experience as anybody in the House of pits closing. When men have been working in a coal mine from the age of 13 or 14 until they are 50, and then because their pit closes they have to be medically examined, it is but natural that they should not be perfectly fit men. It is a remarkable thing, however, that had the pit not closed those men would have continued working there for many years.
They are prevented from working only because of the medical examination. I do not want to say anything derogatory of doctors. Sometimes I feel very strongly about them and I have seen some very naughty things that they have done. However, on the whole, I believe that

they would be prepared to give a fair examination, but I submit that they are not in a position entirely to give such a fair examination to a man whose pit is closing under circumstances over which he has no control. If he is 45 or 50, there are few avenues in life left open to him.
The Minister has been treating us very well, but I notice that when he said he would meet us on this matter he remarked that he would do it in a substantial way. What is "substantial"? Is that 50 per cent. of what we want, 51 per cent., or 100 per cent.? What we want to ensure is that men who are in pits that are closing should be able to work in other pits. Many of these pits are closing today. Some of them should have been closed a long time ago, because they are nothing but junk pits. What is more, we paid considerable sums of money in compensation for them when nationalisation came long. Further, there are hon. Members opposite who thought that we did not pay enough for them. But that is by way of digression.
These men come under a word new to the coal industry—it is "redundancy." The N.U.M. has done its best and the Coal Board has done its best in paying men, as far as possible, during redundancy. But it is not easy to find work for men aged 65 or 70. I am thinking of men who are actually producing coal, who are some of the best workmen in the pit from the point of view of production because of the regularity of their employment. It is not right that they should have to be medically examined, although I am all for the new entrant being examined. If, however, this should be necessary, they should have the right of appeal. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me what he means by "substantially"?

Dr. H. Morgan: This is a most difficult medical problem which is not easy to explain to the layman. The Miners' Federation has no medical officer attached to it, and while some miners' lodges have medical officers attached to them, they are only doing general practitioner work in the main; so that there is no one to whom the general practitioner can appeal unless he sends these men to some other place away from the mining industry.
I ask hon. Members who belong to the medical profession to be careful in accepting medical machinery for reexamination in cases of this kind. Some of these claimants for work at a certain age may be suffering from various degrees of scattered pneumoconiosis, that is to say, it is not concentrated in one part of the lung but is in patches all over it. It is difficult to diagnose such a case even with a decent X-ray. These intermittent examinations may cause great hardship to many old or middle-aged men who have given their lives to the industry and who have given their physical constitution to the industry—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): I do not think that this Amendment has anything to do with the nature of the medical examination.

Dr. Morgan: I thought it had.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment, he will see that it deals with men having to submit to medical examination.

Dr. Morgan: You are drawing it rather tine, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, though I am perfectly prepared to submit to your Ruling on the matter. You are giving a Ruling by which subsequent medical examination or intermittent medical examination can scarcely be discussed. I can only say, God have mercy on the miners who will undergo future medical examination and periodical medical examination whenever something happens in a pit, and either it closes completely or is partially closed.
Unless this Amendment is accepted, great injustice will be dealt out to men who have done all they can for the industry and who have great experience of various kinds of mines. So I beg Labour Members to be very careful in watching this scheme. Although I am getting old, as a medical man I speak from experience, and I beg my hon. Friends on these benches to try to see that these men are protected in every possible way from being thrown on to the labour market simply because a medical officer in a certain area decides that they are not fit for mining work.

Mr. Charles Grey: I want first to say how much we appreciate the Minister accepting the principle of this

Amendment. If he had not done so, something insidious would have been left in the Clause which would have worked against those who are qualified only for light work. Throughout the mining world there are vast numbers of men who are only able to do that kind of work, and if this test of a medical examination applied to those of them who were to be transferred to another colliery, in all probability those people would not be employed there. So it is in that sense That we appreciate what the Minister has done.
This also works against the person who is not 100 per cent. physically fit, who may not be able to obtain a lighter type of work at his own colliery, and yet might have an opportunity of going elsewhere because, if he had first to submit to a medical examination, it would go against him. There is also the question of redundancy, mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor). In the case of a number of pits closing down, a large number of men might have to be re-examined in order to remain employed in an industry in which they had worked all their lives.
So I end by saying, as I began, how much we appreciate the Minister agreeing to the principle of this Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: May I reply briefly and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Taylor) about the meaning of "substantially"? I used that phrase only at the end of my remarks after I had accepted two importtant principles. One is that medical examination of anybody already in the industry could in no circumstances lead to his exclusion from the industry. The second is that medical examination for the purpose of a man continuing in the industry would only apply to new entrants, which I understood was generally accepted, with the exception of the probationary period.
I think that those two principles meet substantially what hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have in their minds; and, of course, we could not allow any sharp practice, which it would undoubtedly be, of trying to treat as new entrants men in pits which were closing down because of redundancy. That would be disgraceful.

Mr. Finch: In view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 87—(SANITARY CONVENIENCES.)

8.0 p.m

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 56, line 3, after "thereat," to insert:
(as well below as above ground).
The object of the Amendment is to make clear that the provision required under the Bill applies below as well as above ground.

Mr. Stan Awbery: I find myself in a similar quandary to that in which I was yesterday. I do not know whether the Clause will apply to men employed in quarries. I want the men in quarries to get the same benefits from the Bill as the men employed in mines. There is nothing in the Clause to say whether they are included or excluded, but Clause 107, to which I was referred yesterday, says:
Sections sixty-six and seventy-three to eighty-nine of this Act (except sections seventy-six and eighty-seven) …
I am anxious to know why there should be this exception. Perhaps the Minister will say that for any reference to a mine there should be substituted reference to a quarry. Why in one Clause does he take out the miner from the Bill and then in another Clause in an indirect way try to put him back again? I should like a definite assurance that quarrymen will not be excluded from the welfare regulations covering sanitary conveniencies.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: General welfare regulations are outside the scope of the Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman will have seen, there is a part of the Bill which deals with safety and welfare provisions in quarries.
On the point about the provision of sanitary conveniences, that is not applied to quarries because it would be impracticable to do so. The method covering the requirement of sanitary conveniencies in quarries is that of regulations whereby the inspectors have powers to require provision to be made where suitable; but quarries are very different from mines in this respect. One gets hundreds of quarries which are worked intermittently. The definition of quarries covers even the small gravel pit on a farm where

it would be totally unreasonable to require a substantial amount of expenditure for the erection of a building which, in any event, probably would not meet with the town and country planning requirements in the situation in which it was required to be set.
We have considered the point. I assure the hon. Member that the Committee went into it very thoroughly. The conclusion which we arrived at was that the extension of the existing principle was the proper method of procedure whereby the provision of conveniences could be required as a result of an inspector calling upon an owner to provide them where necessary.

Mr. Awbery: Mr. Awberyrose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot make another speech, I am afraid.

Mr. Awbery: May I ask the Minister a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member can ask leave of the House.

Mr. Awbery: Does the Minister want to deprive quarryworkers of sufficient and suitable sanitary conveniences because some small quarries will not be obliged to put them up? The Bill says:
All sanitary conveniences … shall be kept clean and properly maintained and reasonable provision shall be made for lighting them.
Surely that is as essential in a quarry as it is in a factory or a mine. The quarrymen ought to be included in the Clause.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I support what the Parliamentary Secretary said. The definition of quarries is very wide and it includes a great number of small pits on farms, where perhaps for a few days in the year a few men may be engaged getting road metal for farm roads. It would be an impossible position if every little quarry of that sort had to have something in the nature of a sanitary convenience.

Mr. Ellis Smith: While I do not expect a reply now, may I ask the Minister to consider putting in something of a more definite character to provide that where above a certain number of men are employed the amenities mentioned should be provided?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Hon. Gentlemen will appreciate that in the matter of mines and quarries several differences should be taken into account. This consideration has led us to deal with the problem in quarries by regulation. That is certainly the most convenient method because of the great variety of quarries. However, I give an undertaking that, in addition to re-enacting the existing regulations for quarries, which deal with the subject already, and which under the Bill—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am not at all clear. When I look at the Clause I see that it does not appear to deal with quarries. As far as I can see, it deals with mines.

Mr. Lloyd: That is true, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but as you allowed debate on the subject, perhaps you will allow me to say that I will look at the matter, especially when the new regulations come to be made.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I think that the union interests among quarryworkers would be well satisfied if the Minister conformed to what he has repeatedly said in Committee and maintained the substance of the present regulations and also, in any case of extending or changing any one of them, he closely consulted both sides of the industry.

Mr. Lloyd: I undertake to do that.

Dr. Morgan: May I put a point to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? On page 56, under the heading Part IV, there is a definite reference to:
Management and Control (Quarries).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Dr. Morgan: It is all about quarries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We have not reached that point yet.

Dr. Morgan: We have reached the question of quarries.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Paper, he will find that we have not.

Mr. Awbery: With all respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point was raised that Clause 107 affects Clause 87. That was why the question was introduced.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes. I am afraid that I let the debate go wider than it should have gone. I did not notice what the hon. Member was saying at the time. We have not reached Clause 107.

Mr. Awbery: Can we raise the point again when we reach that Clause?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: When we get to Clause 107, that is another matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 91.—{GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF QUARRY MANAGERS.)

Amendments made: In page 57, line 27, leave out from second "of," to "the," in line 28, and insert "securing."

In line 35, leave out from "of," to "so," in line 36, and insert "securing."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 93.—(RIGHTS OF QUARRY MANAGER WITH RESPECT TO INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY OR ON BEHALF OF OWNER.)

Amendment made: In page 58, line 20, after "fulfilment," insert:
in relation to the quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 58, line 36, to leave out "as soon as practicable." and to insert "forthwith."
This Amendment is one of many to which we are now coming which bring the provisions with regard to quarries into line with those relating to mines in the matter of drafting so as to make the farms of phraseology consistent and comparable. The effect of the provision is to require that the person who gives instructions on behalf of the owner shall notify the manager forthwith rather than "as soon as practicable."

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 94.—(TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS DURING VACANCY IN OFFICE OF QUARRY MANAGER.)

Amendment made: In page 59, line 5, leave out "forty-eight," and insert "seventy-two."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 97.—(DUTIES OF QUARRY MAN AGERS AND OWNERS WITH RESPECT TO READING OF REPORTS, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 60, line 41, leave out from "other," to "that," in line 43, and insert "competent person and."

In page 61, line 9, leave out from "other," to "that," in line 11, and insert "competent person and."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 102.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO USE OF ROPEWAYS AND VEHICLES.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 62, line 38, to leave out from "Prevent," to "and," in line 41, and to insert:
the occurrence of accidents due to any such vehicles' running away.
As at present drafted, the Clause requires provision of safety devices to prevent vehicles in mines running away. We have already dealt with that point, and the Amendment is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 42, leave out "so far as practicable."

In page 63, line 6, leave out "reasonably practicable," and insert "necessary."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 104.—(DUST PRECAUTIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 63, line 25, to leave out "so far as is reasonably practicable."

In line 36, leave out paragraph (a), and insert:
(a) that the entry of the dust into the air or its accumulation in any place in circumstances in which its accumulation in that place might be harmful is minimised by means of steps in that behalf taken as near as possible to the point of origin of the dust.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 64, line 3, at the end, to insert:
(3) Regulations may impose upon managers of quarries such requirements with respect to the use thereat of prescribed apparatus and the taking thereat of prescribed steps as it may appear to the Minister requisite or expedient to impose for the purpose of attaining any of the objects mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section; and regulations having effect by virtue of this subsection may provide either that compliance therewith by a manager of a quarry is to be taken, either without qualification or to a prescribed extent, as compliance with all or any of the requirements of the said provisions or that compliance with the regulations by a manager of a quarry is not necessarily to be taken as compliance with any of the said requirements.
The Amendment brings the phraseology of the provisions relating to dust suppression in quarries into line with those relating to mines.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 105.—(WITHDRAWAL OF WORKMEN IN CASES OF DANGER.)

Amendments made: In page 64, line 11, after "manager." insert "of the quarry."

In line 12, leave out from "paragraph," to "notice," in line 13, and insert "give."

In line 18, leave out "as soon as reasonably practicable." and insert "so soon."

In line 21, after "subsection," insert:
as it is possible so to do without undue risk

In line 38, leave out "As soon as reasonably practicable after," and insert "Where."

In line 41, leave out from "be," to "particulars," in line 42, and insert:
provided for that purpose by the owner of the quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 108.—(NOTIFICATION OF ACCIDENTS.)

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 65, line 34, after "of," to insert:
or serious bodily injury to.
We are introducing this Amendment in response to an undertaking which I gave in Committee, particularly in reply to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), who made some very helpful observations. The point of the Amendment is the difficulty of defining what is a serious bodily injury. The hon. Member felt that the words in the Bill gave rise to a considerable degree of doubt, and it was generally felt in Committee that it would not be possible to arrive at any satisfactory definition to be included in the statute. By means of the Amendment we propose the deletion of the words other than "serious bodily injury" and we intend to define those words by regulation. We think that that is a more satisfactory way of dealing with the situation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 65, line 35, leave out from "quarry," to end of line 39.

In line 40, leave out "written."

In line 42, leave out "sent," and insert "given."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 66, line 1, to leave out from


"to," to "notices." in line 4, and to insert:
such person as may for the time being be nominated—
(a) in a case where there is an association or body representative of a majority of the total number of persons employed at the mine or quarry, by that association or body;
(b) in any other case, jointly by associations or bodies which are together representative of such a majority
to receive on behalf of the persons so employed
This Amendment, dealing with the 'notification of accidents, is again moved in response to an undertaking which I gave in Committee. The Clause as a whole provides that notice should be sent to the representatives of the body representing the majority of persons employed at a mine or quarry. In the course of discussing the matter it was represented—and we recognised that fact very fully—that in certain places, particularly quarries rather than mines, the majority of employees might not be represented by one organisation.
Therefore, this Amendment and the Amendment to Clause 115 in page 68, line 15, to insert new paragraphs (a) and (b) are designed to provide that where there is not a single trade union or other body which represents all the workmen two or more such unions can get together and between them—if they represent the majority—appoint a representative. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment in page 68 makes exactly the same provision with regard to inspectors.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 66, line 7, leave out "written."

In line 8, leave out "sent," and insert "given."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 66, line 8, after "district," to insert:
and the person nominated as aforesaid.
This Amendment carries out an assurance that I gave in Committee and provides that notification of a man's death which arises subsequent to notification of his serious injury due to an accident must be made to the workmen's representative. It is a tidying up Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 111.—(INQUEST IN CASE OF DEATH BY ACCIDENT.)

Mr. Finch: I beg to move, in page 66, line 41, after "at." to insert:
or by a disease which may have resulted from his employment at.
I wonder whether it would also be convenient to consider with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 43, after "Minister," to insert:
and the person nominated pursuant to section one hundred and eight of this Act or some other person on his behalf.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the House agrees to do so.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think it would be almost impossible to avoid discussion on all Amendments to this Clause if the discussion is not to be unintelligible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House and I am in the hands of hon. Members on this matter.

Mr. Finch: Clause 111 makes provision that where death has taken place a result of an accident the coroner shall convene an inquest, and it is provided that the inquest may be adjourned unless the inspector or some other person acting on behalf of the workman is present in accordance with Clause 108.
By this Amendment we desire that the same procedure should be adopted in the case of industrial diseases. In South Wales many men die as a result of pneumoconiosis contracted during employment in the mining industry. It is very important that where death is suspected to have been due to pneumoconiosis an inspector should be present at the inquest so that the record of the man's employment should be available and the provisions of Clause 108 should be applicable in any event.
A further point is that when dealing with cases of accident a great deal of inquiry is made as to the cause of the injuries and of the accident. That is the principal feature of such inquests. The coroner has to satisfy himself that the death was due to injury or accident at the quarry. But that procedure does not apply in the case of industrial disease, particularly in cases of pneumoconiosis. All the medical evidence is not always available in those circumstances.
It is serious when in South Wales a certain amount of medical evidence is given at an inquest and a verdict is returned that death may have been due to pneumoconiosis. That verdict appears in the local Press and the widow believes that she will get compensation because of that verdict. Then the man's lungs are sent to Cardiff, or some other medical centre, where, after examination, it is decided that death was not due to pneumoconiosis. She then has two medical certificates, one saying that her husband died from pneumocononiosis and the other saying that he did not die from that disease. That causes unnecessary distress.
When we raised this matter in the debate on Welsh affairs, a very delicate position seemed to arise. Clause 111 provides that the coroner shall carry out certain duties when death takes place as a result of an accident in the quarry. All we seek is that the same procedure shall apply if death is due to pneumoconiosis. At present the lungs may be packed up and sent to Cardiff or somewhere else and then it may be found that death was not due to pneumoconiosis and the widow has two death certificates. That causes unnecessary distress and pain to the dependants. There should be uniformity. I have raised this matter in Committee and with the Minister of National Insurance. There seems to be some power held by the coroner which no one is able to touch. We press this question very seriously because of the unnecessary pain and distress which result in such cases.

Mr. Awbery: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is becoming increasingly important to include industrial diseases in this provision. In the quarries men suffer from silicosis through breathing dust from the stone. Yesterday we were discussing the position of men making tarmac at quarries. Those men are subject to other diseases as well as silicosis—for example, epithelioma cancer, brought about by the use of pitch and tar. If a man dies from that disease, the same circumstances should apply to him as to the man who suffers an industrial accident.
There are other diseases. For instance, recently we read of other forms of cancer brought about by the breathing of fumes. Men working on tarmac plants in the

quarries are continuously among fumes and in danger of contracting cancer, and if a man dies from cancer in this way his case should be dealt with in the same way as that of a man who suffers an industrial accident which proves fatal.

Mr. Blyton: We know that there are difficulties in relation to these Amendments because there has to be collaboration between the Home Office and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, but that does not in any way derogate from the vital principles which we think should be embodied in this Clause. It is up to the Government to find some way of meeting this problem. Why should the death of a person who has died from a disease not be brought before a coroner's inquest? In Committee it was said that a man may die in the Isle of Wight and it would not be known where his relatives were; but throughout the Bill many exceptions have been argued in order to try to prove the rule. I hope that we shall not be arguing in that way tonight.
There is another important point. When men are killed or die of injury, we are not notified officially by the coroner that an inquest is to take place. The coroner is tied by the Act to inform the inspector but not to notify those who have to represent the widow. Why should not the report and the documents be given to those who represent the relatives as well as to the inspector? I do not know why there should be opposition to that suggestion.
Nearly all the collieries of the N.C.B. used to give us the plan, a copy of the statements, and all the other paraphernalia when there had been a fatal accident, but that was done through the goodness of the manager and not by legal rights. We have to defend the widow and children, and we are entitled to be as fortified with information as is the inspector who sits beside the coroner and questions everybody so as to get at the truth. The Minister ought to go some way to meet us on this Clause, in regard to these important points.
8.30 p.m.
Coroners' inquests are very important in mining life, because the incidence of accident and industrial disease is very great, and focus our attention upon the defence of those who are left and upon the evidence and the statements that have


to be made. When an accident arises, a man can have his trade union official present at the inquiry to make statements. If we are entitled to that, and if the inspector at an inquiry is entitled under the Bill to bring in someone to help a man in particular circumstances, why should we be debarred from the same procedure at the coroner's court when the welfare of a widow and family are at stake? When we defend a widow who has lost her husband and may be left with children, we are entitled to have the same documents and other material as the inspector.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has performed a service in putting this Amendment on the Paper, although the problem with which he, I and many other hon. Members wish to deal can probably not best be dealt with by amending this Clause or perhaps even this Bill. I say that, because the problem is not restricted to diseases arising out of mining but may arise equally with diseases occasioned in employments for which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power is not responsible.
Nevertheless, there is a real problem here which week by week causes distress to considerable numbers of people, when there are conflicting opinions and certificates as to the cause of death in the case of persons who may have succumbed to industrial disease. I have in mind an instance in my constituency where a man died who had been drawing industrial injury benefit as a pneumoconiotic. The original death certificate gave the cause of death as pneumoconiosis. Imagine the situation of the widow and her feelings when a further certificate was given stating, with the authority of the assessors of the Ministry of National Insurance, that the cause of death was quite different and that her benefit is to be cut off because she falls outside the scope of our industrial injury legislation.
There is a real problem, and I make no apology for detaining the House so as to impress upon my right hon. Friend the necessity of a solution being found by discussion among Her Majesty's Ministers, even though my right hon. Friend should advise the House that the best solution is not by the method of Amendment of this Clause.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I only intervene in this discussion to lend my support to the observations made by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) and by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I have had personal experience of quite a number of instances where great distress has been caused to families by conflicting decisions based upon medical grounds regarding the cause of death.
It may well be that one of the real troubles is the procedure adopted in our coroners' courts, where evidence is given as to the cause of death without the proper inquiry or really searching investigation which is necessary in order to bring about reliable conclusions. But whatever the reason, there can be no doubt at all that the present position is highly unsatisfactory and frequently causes distress to people at a time when we should be particularly anxious to avoid any sense of difficulty. I should like the Minister to look again at this point.
I am far from satisfied that the Amendments will achieve the desired result, but that is only one aspect of the matter, and I think that if the Minister really tried to find a solution to the problem he would be able to alleviate real hardship and suffering in this sphere.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I think that it may be of assistance to the House if I intervene at this stage, particularly as I believe that what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has in mind goes beyond the scope not only of the Amendments but even of the Bill itself. He has almost invited me to offer guidance to the House on the general question of procedure in coroners' courts. I can assure the House that I am going to be exceedingly careful to do nothing of the sort, and I am certainly not going to trespass upon the prerogative of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
I think that the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Cardigan was also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but I particularly wish to assure the House that we are acutely conscious of the distress, anxiety and pain which is caused to innocent people as a result of the issuing of dual certificates of a conflicting character.
I happen to have had a certain amount of experience of that in my present position, and such experience certainly causes one to realise how hardship can be caused as a result of a totally unexpected circumstance. It is probable that when these things first began, no one anticipated the possibility of the worry, anxiety and distress to which they would ultimately lead. But I have seen it, and recognise it, and it is something which, as my right hon. Friend said in Committee, we have every intention of trying to get cleared up.
There are considerable difficulties about it. To begin with, the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) proposes to insert the words:
or by a disease which may have resulted from his employment at.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about pneumoconiosis, but that is only one disease. There are many diseases which might result from employment at a mine or quarry, and that is one of the problems which we have to face. By seeking to impose upon a coroner similar duties to those imposed upon him in the event of death by accident arising in the course of employment in a mine or quarry, we are widening the scope and fettering the discretion of the coroner to a very great extent in cases where death may have occurred from disease.
The coroner need not, and frequently does not hold an inquest in the case of death from disease. If one puts upon him the statutory obligation to hold an inquest in the case of a death which may have resulted from a disease contracted in the course of employment in a certain industry, an obligation is imposed upon him which would carry the whole burden of coroners' inquests very much further than they go at present.
That is one difficulty, but perhaps I may refer quite shortly to some of the arguments put forward about the notification of Her Majesty's Inspectors and of workmen's inspectors.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Before the Parliamentary Secretary leaves this point, I wonder if he will accept from me that the difficulty which he has brought forward is one that does not exist in fact, although it may exist in theory? I hope that he will accept that a coroner faced with the pos

sibility of a death resulting from a disease caused by the man's work—whether scheduled or not—always does hold an inquest.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I am afraid that I cannot accept that as an argument in favour of this Amendment. As the Amendment is drafted, a man may have ceased to be employed for 20 years, and it would be exceedingly difficult for a coroner to make the decision as to whether the death resulted from a disease which may have arisen from an injury in the work in which the man was originally employed.
What has been said about inspectors has given the impression—it has given me the impression, at any rate—that there is, if not some confusion of thought, at least some misapprehension. Her Majesty's Mines Inspectors do not receive plans or witnesses' statements from the coroner. Coroners are under no obligation to issue, nor in fact, so far as Her Majesty's Mines Inspectors are concerned, do they issue, these particular documents or anything of that sort. Whatever does take place—and I am assured that it is the same for workmen's inspectors as for Her Majesty's Inspectors—is purely by mutual arrangement. They get the information from the witnesses themselves.
It would not be possible really to depart from the general practice of coroners' courts, nor to impose upon coroners a special procedure with regard to this particular form of inquest—inquests on people who have died as a result of accidents or, if the Amendment were acceptable, from disease arising out of mining or quarrying. It would introduce an entirely fresh classification of the law for one limited purpose into this much wider sphere of dealing with inquests as a whole.

Mr. Awbery: But does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that where a doctor feels that a man has died from an industrial disease he calls for a post mortem. He then reports to the coroner, who has regard to the decision given to him by the medical man.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It is a matter entirely within the discretion of the coroner. The point which I was seeking to make was that at this stage and in these circumstances it would not be right


for us to fetter the discretion of the coroner.
Perhaps I may return to what I have said. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we believe that the exchange of information—or, as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) graphically and understandably called it "paraphernalia"—can be arranged administratively, so far as Her Majesty's Inspectors and the workmen's inspectors are concerned. That we are perfectly prepared to try to do. I suggest that it would be a far more practical and satisfactory method of doing it than trying to introduce it in statutory form into an Act of Parliament where it has necessarily got to be hedged about with conditions, qualifications, penalties and all the rest of it. We can perfectly well arrange that in the mining industry by administrative procedure.
8.45 p.m.
On the other question which was originally raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty—this question of the possibility of dual certificates—my right hon. Friend and I said that we would discuss the matter with our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to see whether we could obtain any suggestion from him which would meet and overcome the point, because we were quite sure that he would be as sympathetic as we were in finding a way to stop the issue of dual conflicting certificates.
Those discussions have taken place. We have not been idle during the period since we met upstairs, and I can inform the House that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is being fully dealt with by administrative action in the form of a Home Office circular to coroners. We hope very much that as a result of that. which is the practical way of dealing with the point—because it would be impossible by statutory arrangement to preclude the issue of conflicting dual certificates—we shall have met in substance the point that the hon. Gentleman raised. We are as determined as he is to ensure that these dual conflicting certificates are not issued.

Dr. Stross: I should like to know something about the type of suggestion that is to be made to Her Majesty's coroners on this point. The Minister is aware that this problem has not always existed and that it has come to our notice in recent years

mainly because of the increase in the number of cases of pneumoconiosis. In the early days, certainly when I first became conversant with cases of pneumoconiosis, in 1928, I never remember a post mortem, followed by an inquest, when a member of the Pneumoconiosis Board, as it was then called—before they were named panels—was not present at the post mortem. The result was that there was full consultation at the time, and thus there was never any question of a possibility of dual certification.
The Minister must be aware that speedy action is necessary. We have been talking for a long time about the grievances and the hardship caused to widows and dependants when they receive from the coroner advice which he tenders on a certificate, having been advised by a consultant or a medical practitioner or whoever has performed the autopsy that the man has died of the prescribed disease: and then ultimately, when a full and more careful examination is made, including histological examination of the lungs by the Pneumoconiosis Panel to make sure that the case is clear-cut, or by incineration of the lungs to determine the ash content of the lungs, another kind of certificate is issued stating that there has been no such disease
We are speaking on behalf of the dependants who cannot understand this issue. It is impossible for them to listen to a debate of this description and understand why there cannot be some simple procedure. Obviously, if Her Majesty's coroners are going to withhold certification until all the results of examination have been received and then make up their minds, I can see a solution to this problem. If some advice of this type is to be given, and if we have an assurance that the coroners will take note of it—and I am sure they will if they are so advised—it would seem to us that the problem can be solved. How long it is going to be before this is done I do not know, and I think we ought to have a further reassurance that a solution will speedily be found and that the lapse of time before it is put into effect will be very short. We have been discussing this sort of question for some years now. I hope that we can now have that assurance. If we cannot, I think that we ought to express our indignation at what has been going on by dividing on the Amendment.

Mr. T. Brown: The debate has so far revealed the justification for the action which has been promised by the Parliamentary Secretary. During the last few years many of us have been disturbed by the actions of coroners' courts. We know that the coroner is a law unto himself and cannot be interfered with. I want to refer to one of the many cases with which I had to deal when I was concerned with the industrial side of the matter. There was a man in the Farnworth area who was suffering from spinal injuries. After being on his hack for three years he died, and the doctor was of the opinion that his death was not due to these spinal injuries but to something else.
All this time the man had been in receipt of an allowance because of his incapacity. The doctor who intimated that the spinal injuries had not caused his death had, rightly or wrongly, been giving the man certificates stating that he was also suffering from asthma and chronic bronchitis. That awakened my curiosity, and immediately I was notified of his death I sought the assistance of the coroner and told him that this was a matter which warranted a post mortem examination. That examination was made, a section of the lung was taken away and sent to the Silicosis Board in London for microscopic examination, and it was revealed that the man's death had been caused by silicosis.
If we had not taken the trouble to find out the actual cause of death that man's widow would not have received compensation for the death of her husband, because the doctor said that he had not died as a result of his spinal injuries. These cases have been occurring with great rapidity during the last few years. In my own village there are men suffering from injuries to the legs and, at the same time, pneumoconiosis. If, when they die, the doctors decide as they did in the case to which I have referred, difficulties will again arise.
I am pleased to know that the matter will receive the attention of the Home Office. I agree that the Ministry of Fuel and Power has nothing to do with it. The Home Office has control over coroners' courts, and is the proper Department to instruct coroners and medical men as to the procedure in relation to deaths from industrial diseases. By moving the Amendment we are seeking

to secure the attention of the powers that be. So many cases are now occurring which warrant the attention of the Home Office without delay, and we want to see that justice is meted out to the dependants of injured workmen.

Mr. Pryde: I find myself in a slight difficulty, because this discussion has ranged round English legal procedure, whereas about 80,000 miners in Scotland work under a legal system which differs from that of England. If a fatal accident occurs in a mine or a quarry, there is a inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act. It need not deal simply with that accident alone but with half a dozen or a dozen other accidents, and it may not take place until weeks or possibly months afterwards. I should like an assurance from the Minister that this will be clearly noted and that there will be nothing in the Bill by which the position in Scotland will be worse.
I compliment the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on raising the question of dual certification. Only this week I had a parlous illustration of what can happen under dual certification. A great Scottish football player who had been certified suffering from pneumoconiosis for a great number of years died. He had contracted the disease in the mines of the Lothians. When he died the Pneumoconiosis Board certified that he died from cancer. There is a poser for the Home Secretary. Everybody knew that man had been suffering from pneumoconiosis, but the authorities get out of their liability by the Pneumoconiosis Board's certifying he died from cancer, so that the widow and children get nothing. I think that I am not being unreasonable when I ask the Minister to take note of these two points, and to see that our people have due protection.

Miss Margaret Herbison: The Minister has given a very careful reply, and one that, I think, to a certain extent has satisfied my hon. Friends. However, his reply on the mater of dual certification, that the Home Secretary was going to do something about it and that in future all the evidence would be before the coroner and that possibly there would be no dual certification, does not apply to Scotland because of our legal system and the different way in which we


deal with these matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) has raised the matter from a different angle. I have raised it time and time again, not with the Minister of Fuel and Power but with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
I have a great many miners in my constituency, and on not a few occasions I have had widows of miners come to me to ask for my help. The Scottish branch of the National Union of Mineworkers, as, I suppose, the union has in the rest of the country, argued that in these cases there should always be a post mortem. As it is, the widow is informed only that her husband has not died from pneumoconiosis, and, of course, there is no chance of taking action in a court to get compensation.
9.0 p.m.
When the widow has come to me, she has been most disturbed and distressed, and on a number of occasions I have had to write to the pneumoconiosis medical board in Edinburgh to draw its attention to the fact that not only has my constituent been done out of benefit by the decision of the board, but also that she wishes to find out, if her husband did not die from pneumoconiosis—for which she has a certificate—from what, then, he did die. On a number of occasions I have had to get the information from the board and pass it to my constituent.
The Minister's advice does not in any way help us in respect to dual certification of industrial diseases and its effects upon the widows of miners in Scotland. I hope the Minister will give some attention to this matter before the Bill reaches another place, because the advice which perhaps will be given to the coroner in no way affects the cases which cause us a great deal of concern in Scotland.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: It is clear that we face a serious difficulty. No one must under-estimate the amount of hardship and distress which is likely to be caused to widows at a particularly distressing time. We all wish to avoid it. Yet we find that, to be quite frank, although hon. Members have put down this Amendment, we cannot take this action in the Bill because of the constitution of the coroners' courts. We must, therefore, try to find the best way to make some progress.
What has happened is that a demonstration has been made, both in Committee and in the House, which has had the effect of bringing this subject to the fore. It has therefore been very useful, although it appears that we cannot proceed by legislative processes. I am advised—because this is in the province of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—that the way to proceed is by addressing Her Majesty's coroners, and that is done by the Home Secretary, normally by means of a circular. As a result of discussions which we have had with the Home Secretary, following our talks in Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend has told us that he will issue a circular dealing with those points in an endeavour to secure an improvement and to avoid this difficulty. We know that the circular is already in draft. I hope that the results will be good.
I am a little disturbed by what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), because I had not heard that this difficulty had arisen so much in Scotland. Previously I had heard that it was a problem more of the English courts, and I am much disturbed to hear that it is also a problem in Scotland. While I have to approach the Home Secretary and the English legal system with great respect—and will always do so—when it comes to dealing with the Scottish legal system, my timidity increases still further.
As I hope the hon. Lady recognises, I could not, as a mere southern Member, make any statement about the Scottish legal position. The most hopeful thing to do would be for me to approach the Secretary of State in this matter in the same way as I have already approached the Home Secretary. I will also undertake to see that in the formulation of the draft for the coroners, I will bring to attention any additional points which have arisen out of the discussion.

Mr. William Paling: Before the Minister concludes the debate. I should like to emphasise a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch). I do not want to go into the question of dual certification. The Bill contains a Part devoted to safety, health and welfare. In this connection, dealing with industrial diseases—


whether pneumoconiosis or any other disease—presumably the Bill is designed to try to prevent deterioration in the health of the workers in the mining industry. We know that there is not as much knowledge of industrial diseases, even in the medical profession, as there ought to be. We know that, apart from pneumoconiosis, there are in the mining industry many menaces to the health of the workers.
If this is to be a safety, health and welfare Bill, I think that we should ask the Minister to go a little further into this question of the hazards which confront the health of the workers than merely to pass on to the Home Secretary a request that he should do certain things in regard to coroners' courts. We have here an opportunity to make this an effective Bill in regard to its health section, because the question of the health of our people is just as important as our concern about accidents.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the matter which the hon. Member is now raising arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Paling: The question of health is specifically mentioned in the Bill, and also the question of industrial diseases.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is so in the Bill, but not in this Amendment.

Mr. Paling: My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of dual certification and the question of industrial diseases, and discussion has centred around those matters.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The discussion is about the cause of death and dual certification.

Mr. Finch: In view of the assurance given by the Minister that the Home Secretary will give some directive to the coroners on this very important matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 67, line 1, leave out "send," and insert "give."

In line 2, leave out "a notice in writing," and insert "notice."

In line 12, after "inspector," insert "for the district."

In line 17, leave out "send," and insert "give."

In line 17, leave out "in writing."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 112.—(SITE OF ACCIDENT OR OTHER DANGEROUS OCCURRENCE TO BE LEFT UNDISTURBED.)

Amendment proposed: in page 67, line 32, after first "or," insert:
that the non-compliance has been approved by the inspector and that compliance therewith."—[Mr. Blyton.]

Mr. Grenfell: I wish to refer to the procedure which now ensues upon what has already been agreed by the House. There is now a provision for information to be given of the time and place of holding the adjourned inquest. The information to be given to the inspector may be given by word of mouth, and there is no guarantee that the information or the report has been given. I propose that there should be definite proof that the inspector was so informed, and that the inspector for the district
and the person so nominated
should receive the information from the inspector.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with an Amendment which has not been called. The Amendment I have called is to Clause 112, page 67, line 32.

Mr. Blyton: This Amendment deals specifically with fatal accidents and the clearing of the scene of accidents to leave the work of the pit unimpeded. Under the Bill as drafted, if an accident happened at a shaft the manager could simply clear the scene of the accident on the basis that otherwise the work would be impeded.
We recognise that it would be foolish to hold up the production of the whole pit because an accident had occurred at the shaft. We think, however, that some sanction should be placed upon managers, otherwise they may use the Clause as an argument for clearing away something that happened in a fatal accident which they did not want anybody to see. We suggest, therefore, that if work would be impeded by not clearing the scene of an accident, the manager should first have the approval of the district inspector. The Amendment has been designed to


meet objections that have been put forward, and we hope that it will have the approval of the House.

Mr. T. Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.
Like all Amendments coming from this side of the House, this is a very important Amendment. Sometimes in the course of my painful privilege of inpecting the scenes of fatal accidents I have discovered that somebody has been there before me. It has happened, although not very often, that somebody has already removed evidence which would have assisted me, together with the inspector and the coroner, to decide the cause of the accident. I do not think that that is right.
If there is any evidence at the scene of an accident, whatever it might be, which would help in the course of investigations and inquiries into the cause, it is manifestly unfair that any man, whether he be mine manager or anyone else, should remove it when, had it been left, it would assist us to determine what should be done to prevent other similar accidents. We are anxious, therefore, that the Amendment should be made.
It has been my painful duty to examine places that appeared to me to be unsafe, and as practical men we must appreciate the difficulties. If a man is buried by a fall of roof or is trapped underneath tubs, the first concern of the men in the pit is to get him out. Invariably the man dies after he has been extricated, but if in their enthusiasm to relieve him the men disturb something, they cannot be blamed.
Here we have an opportunity of asking the inspector to assist us. If he is the first man on the scene, then he has a responsibility. That responsibility to investigate the scene of an accident is great, and he would not give any consent nor would he empower any man to remove any of the evidence until he was satisfied in his own mind that he had got the information that was required to assist people at a subsequent date to determine how that accident happened. This is a very modest but important Amendment, and both the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary will understand why it is that we are concerned to see it accepted.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: This is really a very short point. The Bill provides that when an accident has occurred the site shall be left undisturbed until the expiration of three days after the accident or until the place is visited by an inspector. The discussion which took place in Committee turned upon the necessity for leaving the place for three days or in certain circumstances until it had been visited by an inspector because there might be damage which would hold up the working of the pit.
My right hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would consider making it conditional upon the consent of the inspector whether or not the place where the accident occurred should be cleared for working or left undisturbed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), with his customary skill, endeavoured to convert that assurance into an Amendment and he very nearly achieved it. But I am afraid it will not quite do, and I must ask him to leave the matter on the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave because we have not had the time to complete the matter in detail. I give the assurance that when the Bill goes to another place we will move the necessary Amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Grenfell: I am content to leave the matter there.

Mr. Blyton: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 115.—(INSPECTIONS OF MINES AND QUARRIES ON BEHALF OF WORKMEN EMPLOYED THEREAT.)

Amendment made: In page 68, line 15, leave out from "quarry."' to end of line 18, and insert:
(a) in a case where there is an association or body representative of a majority of the total number of persons employed at the mine or quarry, by that association or body;
(b) in any other case, jointly by associations or bodies which are together representative of such a majority.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 68, line 19, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:
(2) The owner of a mine or quarry shall be under an obligation to permit such inspections to be carried out thereat by members of the


panel appointed therefor under subsection (1) of this section as will enable every part of the mine or quarry and the equipment thereof to be inspected once at least in every month by two of these members together (of whom one at least is employed at the mine or quarry).
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take together this Amendment and the five succeeding Amendments, in page 68, line 45, and in page 69 to lines 3, 21, 29, and 42. Although they look quite a lot, the point is a very short one, and I hope it will afford satisfaction to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. These Amendments deal with the problem of the right of inspection of a mine. Under the 1911 Act there was a minimum right to inspect each part of the mine once in each month, and it was urged in Committee that that right should be repeated in this Bill. That is what is done in the Amendment which I am moving.
The second point which this series of Amendments covers is the promise made by the Minister to turn round the emphasis in the Clause so that the statutory minimum number of inspections which each working man had the right to claim should be put before any reference to the aditional inspections to which they might have a right under an agreement with the owners. So that has been done, and it only remains for me to say that those two provisions are achieved in the first two Amendments, and the remaining four are consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 68, line 45, at end, insert:
(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be construed as precluding the making, as respects a mine or quarry, of an agreement between the owner thereof and the association or body (or, as the case may be, associations or bodies) by whom a panel therefor is appointed under subsection (1) of this section with respect to the carrying out, by members of that panel, of inspections at the mine or quarry, so, however, that no such agreement shall operate so as in any way to abridge the rights conferred by the said subsections (2) and (3).

In page 69, line 3, leave out front "out," to "an." in line 5, and insert:
by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of this section or of any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (4) thereof.

In line 21, leave out from "are," to "carrying." in line 24, and insert:
by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of this section or of any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (4) thereof.

In line 29, leave out from "out," to "it." in line 31, and insert:
by virtue of subsection (2) of this section or of any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (4) thereof.

In line 42, leave out from "thereat," to end of line 44, and insert:
by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) of this section or of any such agreement as is mentioned in subsection (4) thereof."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks]

Orders of the Day — Clause 118.—(PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES AND OF MALE YOUNG PERSONS UNDER SIXTEEN.)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Joynson-Hicks.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friends to Clause 116, page 70, line 14, at end, insert:
From the date of the coming into operation of this Act no female shall be employed at a mine on any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was on or prior to that date employed on such work at a mine.
It is of great importance to our people and I wonder why it has not been called?

Mr. Speaker: It is not selected. It was discussed exhaustively in Committee and divided upon.
Amendment made: In page 71, line 8, after "or," insert "at a."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 119.—(PERIODS OF EMPLOYMENT OF MALE YOUNG PERSONS OVER SIXTEEN.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 71, to leave out line 36, and to insert:
In the case of a mine (other than of coal) or a quarry, the responsible person.
This and the succeeding three Amendments are the first four of a series of seven Amendments, all of which are consequential and which depend upon the definition of the term "responsible person" which has been introduced into Clause 169.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 71, line 37, leave out "the manager of a coal mine," and insert:
in the case of a coal mine, the responsible person."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 120.—(NOTICE FIXING HOURS OF EMPLOYMENT, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 72, line 20, leave out from "shall," to "to," in line 21, and insert:
in the case of every mine and quarry, be the duty of the responsible person.

In line 39, leave out "manager of the mine or quarry," and insert:
responsible person."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 121.—(SPECIAL TEMPORARY EXCEPTION AS RESPECTS COAL MINES IN DURHAM, NORTHUMBERLAND AND WARWICK.)

Amendment made: In page 73, line 18, at end, insert:
and the reference in subsection (1) of the last foregoing section to the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall be construed accordingly."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 122.—(SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 73, line 24, to leave out from "mine," to "for," in line 25.
This Amendment gives effect to yet another undertaking given in Committee and is designed to allow a young person between the age of 16 and 18 who is employed below ground in a metalliferous mine to remain below ground after the time when his period of employment ends if it is for the purpose of rendering assistance in the case of an accident or meeting any danger or dealing with any unforeseen circumstance. It is a slight change in the law but brings matters into line with the situation in the coal mines. I think that the House will agree that that is a desirable state of affairs.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 123.—(REGISTER OF WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS EMPLOYED.)

Amendments made: In page 73, line 41, leave out from "shall," to "to" in line 42, and insert:
,in the case of every mine and quarry, be the duty of the responsible person.

In page 74, line 4, leave out from beginning, to "produce." in line 5, and insert:
It shall, in the case of every mine or quarry, be the duty of the responsible person to."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 74, line 9, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:

(3) Before a male young person is first employed below ground in a mine his employer (if other than the owner of the mine) shall inform the manager of the mine or some other person appointed in that behalf by the manager, that the young person is to be so employed.
The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee stage and provides that an employer, other than the owner of the mine, shall inform the manager if he has working for him underground a person who is under the age of 18. Hitherto, there has not been provision for that and we agreed with the Committee that it was a wise provision to make.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 124.—(SUPPLEMENTAL.)

Amendments made: In page 75, line 1, leave out "(of any age)," and insert:
(whether he has attained the age of sixteen or not).

In line 2, leave out "or quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 125.—(PROVISION, PRESERVATION AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS CONTAIN ING REPORTS.)

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, in page 75, line 15, at the end, to insert:
exemptions granted and requirements imposed by the inspector.
The Clause deals with the keeping of records at a colliery. We think it essential that where an inspector exempts a colliery from the safety requirements of the Bill, a record of the exemptions should be kept in the colliery so that people at the colliery shall know exactly what they are.

Mr. Neal: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: We entirely accept the need for this provision but this Clause is not the appropriate place to deal with it. It is best dealt with in Clauses 97 and 98.

Mr. Blyton: In view of the Minister's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 75, line 31, leave out "at all reasonable times."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 126.—(PRESERVATION AND INSPEC TION OF COPIES OF WRITTEN APPOINTMENTS MADE BY MINE OR QUARRY MANAGER.)

Amendment made: In page 75, line 36, leave out "or quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 75, line 40, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 44 and to insert:
or
(b) by the owner or a manager of a quarry in pursuance of regulations having effect by virtue of section ninety-eight of this Act;
the person making the appointment shall forthwith make a record thereof; and a record made in pursuance of this subsection shall be preserved until the expiration of twelve months after the ending of the appointment evidenced thereby and, until no longer required to be preserved, shall be kept at the proper office of the mine or quarry to which the appointment is referable.
This also is a drafting Amendment, which is consequential on the separation of the quarry management and mine management Clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 76, line 1, leave out subsection (2), and insert:
(2) A record made in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall, until no longer required to be preserved, be open to inspection by, or by a person authorised in the behalf in writing by, a person employed at the mine or quarry to which the appointment evidenced by the record is referable.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 127.—(PROVISION OF COPIES OF THIS ACT AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS.)

Amendment made: In page 76, line 14, leave out "at all reasonable times."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 128.—(POSTING OF NOTICES.)

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, in page 76, line 26, after "regulations." to insert:
and any exemptions granted and requirements imposed by the inspector.
This Amendment and the next Amendment, to line 29, after "regulations." to insert "exemptions and requirements," deal with the same matter and, in the light of what the Minister said on the previous Amendment, I hope he will accept these Amendments.

Mr. Neal: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I can give the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) the same assurance as before. I hope with the same happy result.

Mr. Blyton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Clause 129.—(FURNISHING TO WORKERS OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS ACT AND ORDERS AND REGULA TIONS THEREUNDER.)

Amendment made: In page 77, line 4, leave out from "shall," to end of line 5, and insert:
,in the case of every mine and quarry, be the duty of the responsible person."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 131.—(NOTIFICATION OF BEGIN NING AND CESSATION OF CERTAIN MINING AND QUARRYING OPERATIONS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 77, line 28, to leave out from the first "or," to "the," and to insert, "a seam or vein therein."
The object of this and the succeeding six Amendments is to revert to the period of 12 months instead of two months for which a quarry may be closed prior to the notification of the inspector. That is the period which is in existence at present. It is contained in the Regulations, and these Amendments give effect to it in the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In line 29, leave out from first "or," to first "the," in line 30, and insert, "a seam or vein therein."

In line 31, leave out from first "or," to "was," in line 32, and insert, "a seam or vein therein."

In line 34, leave out from first "or," to first "after," in line 35, and insert. "a seam or vein therein."

In page 78, line 1, leave out "or quarry."

In line 4, leave out from first "or," to "is," in line 5, and insert, "a seam or vein therein."

In line 12, at end, insert:
(2) In any of the following events, namely, the beginning of operations for the purpose of opening a quarry, the abandonment of a quarry, the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which a quarry was last worked for the purpose of


producing minerals and the resumption of the working of a quarry after the abandonment thereof or after the expiration of such a period as aforesaid, the owner of the quarry in question shall, within two weeks after the happening of that event, give notice thereof to the inspector for the district:
Provided that, where a quarry is abandoned after the day on which it was last worked for the purpose of producing minerals but before the expiration of the period of twelve months beginning with that day, it shall not be necessary to give notice of the expiration of that period.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 133.—(REGULATIONS.)

Amendments made: In page 78, line 24, leave out from "which," to "and" and insert:
provision is by this Act required or authorised to be made by regulations.

In line 34, at the end, insert:
;and it shall be the duty of the Minister to exercise the power conferred by this subsection as regards any matter the making of provision for which is by this Act required to be made by regulations."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 136.—(GENERAL POWERS OF INSPECTORS.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 81, line 8, to leave out from the beginning, to "so," in line 10, and to insert:
''in the absence of persons other than a person nominated by him to be present and any persons whom the inspector may allow to be present, such questions as the inspector thinks fit to ask.
This Amendment implements an undertaking which was given that a person questioned by an inspector should have the right to have present his representative, if he wishes.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 37, leave out "the," and insert "a."

Orders of the Day — Clause 137.—(POWER OF INSPECTOR TO REQUIRE REMEDY FOR IMMEDIATE OR APPREHENDED DANGER.)

Mr. Blyton: I beg to move, in page 82, line 11, at the beginning, to insert:
Notwithstanding the provisions of Part XV of this Act.
We have put the Amendment on the Paper to clear the air, because we are dubious that the apprehended-danger Clause, about which we talked so much in the Committee may be compromised by Part XV of the Bill. We do not want that Clause to be mixed up with the

appeal tribunal procedure, and we want to clarify the position. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be able to assure us that the apprehended-danger Clause is paramount. If we get an assurance that it is paramount and away from the tribunal procedure, I shall be quite satisfied to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Finch: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I can give the assurance that the Amendment proposed is unnecessary, and the assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. Blyton: In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In page 82, line 16, leave out from "the," to "a," in line 17, and insert "responsible person."

In line 19, leave out from the first "the," to end of the line, and insert "responsible person."

In line 25, leave out "upon the owner or manager of," and insert "with respect to."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 138.—(POWER OF CHIEF INSPECTOR TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FOR PURPOSE OF PERMITTING TRIALS OF NEW EQUIPMENT, ETC.)

Amendment made: In page 82, line 29, leave out Clause 138.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 143.—(FENCING OF ABANDONED AND DISUSED MINES AND OF QUARRIES.)

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 87, line 9, at the end, to insert:
(4) In the application of this section to the administrative county of London, for references to Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, and to a statutory nuisance there shall be respectively substituted references to section two hundred and eighty-two of, and the Fifth Schedule to, the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, and to a nuisance which may be dealt with summarily under that Act.
This is a small technical Amendment dealing with fencing in the administrative County of London, and it requires to be dealt with under the Public Health Act, 1936. We have accordingly introduced this Amendment to give that effect.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 144.—(OFFENCES.)

Amendments made: In page 87, line 30, after "fulfilment," insert "in relation to the mine."

In page 88, line 6, after "fulfilment." insert "in relation to the quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 150.—(SPECIAL DEFENCE AVAIL ABLE TO MINE UNDER-MANAGERS WITH EIMITPD JURISDICTION.)

Amendments made: In page 90, line 34, leave out "under this Act," and insert:
which, by virtue of subsection (1) of section one hundred and forty-four of this Act are taken, in respect of a contravention of any such provision or notice as is mentioned in that subsection.

In line 43, after "mine." insert ",being a person."

In line 44, leave out "such an under-manager," and insert:
an under-manager whose jurisdiction is so limited."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 159.—(DIVISION OF MINES.)

Amendment made: In page 95, leave out lines 28 to 34, and insert:
The provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to references upon notices served by inspectors shall apply to a notice served under this subsection."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 161.—(POWER OF MINISTER AND INSPECTOR TO GRANT EXEMPTIONS FOR LIMITED PERIOD FROM COM MENCEMENT OF THIS ACT.)

Mr. Grenfell: I beg to move, in page 96, line 14, after "may," to insert:
after consultation with an association or body of persons representative, in the case of a coal mine, of the majority of persons employed at the mines concerned and, in the case of any other mine or quarry, of a substantial proportion of the persons employed at the mines or quarries concerned.
I am quite sure that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, because it is an effort to solve difficulties arising through amalgamation between various quarries or mines with neighbouring properties which have an interest to combine. Perhaps I had better read the Clause to the House so as to make the matter quite clear. The Clause says:
Where the Minister is of opinion, with respect to mines or quarries of any class, that by reason of the nature or amount of work involved, or of the shortness of the period during which the mines or quarries are expected to be worked or other special

circumstances affecting them, it would be impracticable to require compliance with a particular provision of Part III or, as the case may be, Part V of this Act forthwith after the commencement of this Act, he may …
The Amendment proposes, after the word "may," to insert:
after consultation with an association or body of persons representative, in the case of a coal mine, of the majority of persons employed at the mines concerned and, in the case of any other mine or quarry, of a substantial proportion of the persons employed at the mines or quarries concerned.
This is an attempt to make it impossible to wind up or to cease production or employment at any such enterprise without the full consultation of the persons employed. Whether employed under Part III or Part IV of the Bill, these people stand the prospect of an amalgamation of the interests with, perhaps, the cessation of employment or a substantial modification of their employment, and we want to retain consultation. This is really the only piece of industrial democracy that there is in the whole of the Bill. I hope that the Minister has already made up his mind to accede to this request. It may be very important for people engaged, perhaps, in out of the way properties where neighbouring employment may not be available. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted so that a settlement may be arranged between all parties and employment guaranteed for these people.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Neal: I hope that the Minister is still in the conciliatory mood in which we have found him during the whole of today's debate and feels disposed to accept this Amendment. If the provision we require is not inserted, the whole of this Clause 161 will be made nonsense.
The Clauses gives tremendous powers to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines to grant exemptions not only in regard to old mines on account of the shortness of their expected life, but in regard to new mines also. The overwhelming powers conferred upon Her Majesty's Inspector render it possible for him to say, "You need not do anything about dust prevention. You need not do anything about ventilation. You can carry on with dilapidated roads in fact, you can ignore the rest of the provisions of this Mines and Quarries Bill." Where such tremendous powers are conferred upon Her Majesty's Inspectors and, as a consequence, the workmen have to undergo extra risks, we think that


the workmen are entitled to be consulted before such exemptions are made.
I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the value of a mutual agreement in those circumstances. If I were an Inspector of Mines and was imposing extra risk on workmen underground by the exemptions which I was granting to the management I should feel much happier with a chance of carrying the workmen with me in such an exemption.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I wish to say at once that there is no doubt at all that, as a normal rule, there ought to be consultation with the representatives of the workmen on all occasions when any exemptions of this kind are given. I hope, however, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be prepared to accept my assurance that there is a difficulty about actually putting the words in the Bill. We have to face the practical fact that there will probably be a slight rush of these applications just before the Bill comes into operation. If in those circumstances, when there was not time actually to arrange consultation with the workmen, and we actually have these words in the Bill, it would be statutorily impossible to give the exemption.
We propose, therefore, that we should retain the freedom to give the deferment—which is what it is, a deferment—for only a short time, a week, or a fortnight or a month and thus enable consultation to take place. That is how we would propose to operate, but the House will see that we do intend, as a normal feature, to have consultation.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the Minister go one step further and say that if there is a lot of unemployment the matter will receive special attention?

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Oh, yes.

Mr. A. Roberts: We must appreciate that months of deliberation can be swept away by Clause 161. If the inspector is confident about his decision, there should be no fear in taking into consultation the work people who have to endure risk inside the particular mine. This Clause may be a way out for some people, but we hope it is not a way out which involves greater risks and hazards in the mining industry. However sincere we may be in our desire to secure improvements in the mining industry, we

must not allow any possibility of them being completely swept away by having an undesirable Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Grenfell: In view of the Minister's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 96, line 19, leave out "manager of the mine or quarry," and insert:
responsible person."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 162.—{PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS, RULES, ETC.)

Amendments made: In page 96, line 33, after "regulations," insert:
and on the Minister and the Minister of Labour and National Service to make orders.

In line 34, after "regulations," insert:
or of an order expressed to relate only to a particular mine or quarry."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 163.—(MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICES UNDER THIS ACT.)

Amendment made: In page 97, line 12, after the second "or," insert "a manager of a."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 97, line 15, at the end, to insert:
(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to the sending of any document as they apply to the giving of a notice.
This Amendment provides the same method for service of documents as was provided earlier in the Bill for service of notices.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Clause 169.—(GENERAL INTERPRETATION PROVISIONS.)

Amendment made: In page 98, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 3, on page 99.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 99, line 3, at the end, to insert:
minerals" includes stone, slate, clay, gravel, sand and other natural deposits except peat.
This is a definition Clause, and this Amendment is designed to ensure that "minerals" should include not only stone, which we discussed a good deal in Committee, but various other unconsolidated deposits as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Further 'Amendments made: In page 99, line 4, at end, insert:
notice" means a notice in writing.

In page 99, leave out lines 17 to 19.—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move in page 99, to leave out lines 20 to 22, and to insert:
railway company" means any persons authorised by an enactment to construct, work or carry on a railway and includes the British Transport Commission, and for the purposes of this definition the expression "enactment" includes a provision of an order or scheme made under or confirmed by an Act.
This is a new definition of a railway company.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 100, line 19, leave out from "of," to "products," in line 20, and insert:
getting minerals or.

In line 34, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 170.—(EXCLUSION OF SS. 107 AND 108 OF FACTORIES ACT, 1937.)

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I beg to move, in page 101, line 1, to leave out Clause 170.
This Clause is no longer necessary, consequent upon the first new Clause which we passed yesterday.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Amendment made: In page 114, line 31, column 3, at beginning, insert:
In section one hundred and fifty-one, subsection (5)."—[Mr. Joynson-Hicks.]

Motion for Third Reading—(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time." The House has heard enough from me today and I do not want to detain it for any length of time now. We have often been told that it is a long road that has no turning. I believe that during the course of our deliberations on this Bill we have proceeded down a long road. From time to time I seem to have hit my head upon a projection, and we seem to have negotiated some pretty

stringent gradients, doubtless when making our way through faults, but we have now nearly come to the end of the road.
My view is that the hope expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the Second Reading debate has been achieved, namely, that we have succeeded, by the immense amount of work we have put in during the various stages of the Bill, in improving it very considerably and making it a really worthy successor to the 1911 Act by taking this further step forward in the progress of making safety and welfare in the mines a reality and an assurance, so far as it is possible to give any assurance, to those who are employed in the mines. I do not propose, at this stage, to go into the details of the Bill, but I hope that those hon. Members who have not done so much talking as I have will have an opportunity of expressing their views upon it.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Pryde: I suppose it is only right that a voice from Midlothian should utter a welcome to the Third Reading of the Bill. It may interest the House to know that the first charter in regard to coal mines regulations was written by John Chisholm, of Eskbank, who was secretary of the Lothians Coal Owners' Association and lived one mile from where I live at present. I pay a tribute to the Committee for the work it did on the Bill, because it is a tremendous Bill with wide ramifications.
The law in Scotland is interpreted in the sheriffs' courts of Scotland. I hope and trust that the Bill will, when it becomes operative, confer on the mining community all the benefits the Committee intended that it should as it arduously worked on it. I strike this note because I come for a cautious strain. I speak with heartfelt sympathy with all who have suffered in the mining industry because I come from a mining family that has made sacrifice of life and limb in the industry.

10.0 p.m.

Sir T. Moore: The whole mining industry owes a great debt of gratitude to the Minister, the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary. I have never seen a group of Ministers who have so fairly represented common humanity and tolerance as well as receptiveness to the feelings of the House as those three have on this Bill. The


Minister has shown a receptive quality, a wise tolerance and a humanity of which he will be proud when the Bill becomes an Act. The Attorney-General's lucidity of explanation in unravelling all our difficulties has been a source of constant wonder, and all the way through the work on the Bill the Parliamentary Secretary has been a tower of strength.
I would also pay tribute to the Standing Committee that toiled and moiled over this Bill for three months, and that made a very good job of it, I think. I would also pay a tribute to the Opposition, especially those Members who represented the party opposite in the Standing Committee. Their wide experience and knowledge of the industry, their deep humanity, and their personal contact with the industry were of tremendous value to those of us who did not enjoy so wide a knowledge and experience of it. They deserve a large meed of credit with the industry for the contributions they made to the completion of the Bill.
On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), with his somewhat exaggerated language, described the Bill as
… a rotten Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 21st January, 1954; Vol. 522, c. 1223.]
I could not possibly agree with that description, but I think there were certain defects in the Bill that are obvious to all of us. The main one was the imposition on the quarrying side of the industry of the rather heavy managerial structure that was so much more suitable to coal-mining. It was made clear from both sides of the House, and immediately my right hon. Friend readily accepted the view of the House and set about reconstructing the Bill in a way that, I think, was quite unique and met with general acceptance on both sides of the House.
There are one or two points that need, perhaps, a little more clarification. Possibly that can be attended to in another place. They are points that my right hon. Friend has not had time or opportunity to deal with on Report. I am quite satisfied to leave it in his hands to see that those matters that are still in dispute, if there are any, receive full consideration. I would again congratulate the Minister, the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary, and the Members of the Committee, one and all, for the contributions and the help they

have given to making this a jolly good Bill.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: As one who played a small part in the deliberations on this Bill, I should like to open by paying tribute to my hon. Friends who have done such splendid work in digging and delving and making it possible for the Bill to reach its present stage. I find it difficult to decide the priorities among them, for they have all done a tremendous job—those who have been on what we call the working party of this side of the House—over the months during which we have been busy with the Bill.
Again I am a little doubtful about the order of priority, but I want also to pay tribute to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. From the Minister we have had consideration and patience. The Parliamentary Secretary has been most gracious and tolerant in endeavouring to meet the intricate points we have raised. The Attorney-General has been most helpful on legal matters. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), who has been our legal consultant on this side of the House, is not here, because he has given us a great deal of help on legal matters. We are sorry that as a result of his accident he is unable to be here, and we hope that he will be speedily restored to health.
This has been a miners' Bill. In most Bills which come into the House we have a cross-section, and the legal men on both sides of the House are able to bandy legal phrases across the Floor. In this Bill we have been speaking from practical experience lasting over many years. As a result of what we have done, comparing the Bill in its present state with the Bill which was introduced to us on First and Second Reading, we can say that we have a charter for health and safety in the mines of this country which will last for many years.
In these friendly remarks I should not like to strike a note of discord, but in one respect I am very disappointed in the Bill. Perhaps that can be put right in another place. I am thoroughly ashamed that we have not put a stop to the recruitment of women on the surface of the mines. We had down an Amendment to prevent the recruitment of women on the surface, but it was ruled that it could not be called.


There are only about 300 of these women—a relic of the old days when girls and women worked in the pits. It is the last reminder of that state of affairs which once existed in this country and of which everybody is heartily ashamed. I am sorry that the Minister was unable to accept our Amendment and place a bar on the recruitment of women on the surface of the mines of this country.
The last Bill endured for 43 years, since 1911. I feel confident in prophesying that this Bill will probably go the half-century.

10.10 p.m.

Colonel C. G. Lancaster: I should like to add a word to the very generous tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) and the right hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) to the Minister, the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary for the part which they have played in guiding this Bill through Committee, and bringing it to the stage which we are now considering.
I should also like to say how much we owe to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who gave of their ripe experience and practical knowledge to bring about the real improvements which, I think, we have made in this Bill. Those of us who studied the Bill when it was first presented to the House, formed, I think, the opinion that its success would depend in great measure on the work which inevitably would have to be carried out in Committee. We had a great many sittings and spent long hours in giving exhaustive and detailed consideration to their very wide knowledge of matters which arose in this long and important Measure.
We were fortunate in having on the Opposition benches men who had devoted a great part of their lives to this industry and who, from their great detailed knowledge of the various matters which were under discussion, were able to give invaluable help. It would have been unreasonable to expect that we were agreed on every point that was discussed. Indeed, on a great many points there was a wide variety of opinion. Nevertheless, as a result of these discussions I believe that a great deal of good has been done.
I therefore join with those who have already said that here is a Bill which, when it becomes an Act, we may look on with confidence as being a charter which will serve this industry in good stead. I think that it is a definite improvement on the 1911 Act, and has gone a stage further along the road to health and safety within this industry. I should like to give my best wishes to a Measure which will in due course serve, I feel certain, the industry in which we are all interested, and bring about those things which we all require for the health and safety of the men who spend their lives digging coal and producing the requirements of this nation.

10.13 p.m.

Miss Herbison: I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity of speaking at this stage of the Bill. I was not one of the Members of the Committee—a Committee which did so much work and gave of its time so generously and so willingly. I did, however, throughout the Committee stage, follow the work of that Committee and studied the debates and the Amendments which were made to the Bill.
There is no doubt that the Bill as it appears today is very different from the Bill which we discussed on Second Reading. I think that perhaps there are two reasons for that. In the first instance, I am sure that never before has there been a Committee of this House which had on it so many experts dealing with the subject which was before them. We had on our side of the Committee, almost without exception, men who had worked for a long time in the industry, and who were able to give of their own practical experience a fund of knowledge which was of use to the Committee.
We had also, on the other side, if we may talk about the back benchers of the other side of the Committee, the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), who has just spoken, a Member to whom, in mining debates during my time in the House, I have always listened with the greatest interest. In the field of health, welfare and safety, the hon. and gallant Member has always shown during these years that he has the greatest interest—indeed, an interest as great as that of Members on this side. That was the first reason


—that we had so many experts on the Committee.
The second reason was that we had on the Government Front Bench a Minister, a Parliamentary Secretary and an Attorney-General who were willing to listen to the experts and to see whether what the experts put forward could possibly be incorporated in the Bill. Although it was a Committee that took a long time over this big Bill, it went through its work harmoniously from beginning to end.
I cannot help thinking, however, that no matter how considerate were the Ministers, many of the propositions put forward from this side would never have found their way eventually into the Bill had the mines still been under private ownership. I have thought all along, when reading the reports of the proceedings in Committee, that the Ministers were helped considerably because they had to consult, not private owners, as was the case in 1911, but a National Coal Board.
We have before us tonight a Bill that will do much to make the welfare and health of those who work in the industry very much better than it could be before the Bill is on the Statute Book. I am, however, very sory indeed that one of our Amendments was not incorporated in the Bill. We may not think that this is a perfect Bill; it is a very good Bill indeed, but I am desperately sorry that the Minister did not accept and include in the Bill our point of view that when it becomes law no women should be allowed to work on the screens or in the filthy work of the pithead. There was a long discussion in Committee on this point, and I was amazed at the speeches that were made by the only two women Members of the Committee.
I live in a mining village where in my young days quite a number of women worked on the screens. I think that only two women do that work today. One of the hon. Ladies who spoke in Committee, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), for whom I have the greatest respect, said:
If women do not want to work in coal mines at all, they are strong-minded enough not to do so, and I think that this is not a case 'for eliminating them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th Max, 1954; c. 1035.]

That shows very clearly that the hon. Lady simply does not know the history of women working on the screens. They no longer follow this practice in my area, because there is alternative employment.
In areas where women still work at this filthy job on the screens, it is mainly because there is no alternative industry. Had the Minister been courageous and said that when the Bill went on to the Statute Book he would stop this practice, it would have been the job of a wise Government to provide the alternative employment for the women in the areas where they have to depend upon the screens.
The hon. Lady the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford) took a different line. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) had spoken about the dangers of pneumoconiosis. Those of us who have watched these women working on the screens know what a filthy, dusty job it is. It is a job where the coal dust can enter the lungs and cause this dreaded disease. The hon. Lady the Member for Down. North, said:
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) mentioned pneumoconiosis, but surely women are no more subject to that disease than men are? If the risk is not too great for men, why is it too great for women?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 11th May, 1954; c. 1049.]
I do not accuse the hon. Lady of callousness; I accuse her of ignorance in this instance. She just does not know. I am certain that she has never seen a man suffering from pneumoconiosis, as I have. If she had, she would have done everything she could in the Committee to prevent the risk of any woman ever having this dread disease.
I am sorry that this matter had to be brought up on the Third Reading, but I would have been doing much less than what I consider to be my duty if I had not raised it. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this matter again. The number concerned at the present time, is, I understand, 250. In 92 per cent. of the coalfields there is not one woman employed. In 1911 we said that no women should be employed underground. Let us, 43 years later, say that no woman shall be employed above ground.
I realise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are about to call me to order, and I should like to thank you for being so


generous and letting me make these few remarks. Quite frankly, I knew there was danger in raising this issue. I was very sorry not to have been on the Standing Committee. It was not my fault. I urge the Minister, when this Bill goes to another place, to carry out the suggestion I have made. I ant sure that such hon. Members as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) would not want to see women doing this job. I think this is an excellent Measure, but let us make it more excellent still in another place by putting in a Clause which will stop women working on the screens.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. A. Roberts: This is a memorable occasion. This is the first Measure since 1911 concerning the welfare and safety of mineworkers. To me, it is the most important piece of legislation to go through the House this Session. We do not always hit the headlines as is the case with Foreign Affairs, but we are here dealing with the welfare and well being of over 700,000 workers. Personally, I want to congratulate all the Members of the Standing Committee for dealing with this Measure in the way that they did. At one time we thought it was going to be thrown overboard. We have had our anxieties, but I am pleased to think that we can now see the end of the lane, as was said by the Parliamentary Secretary. We have not got all we wanted, but we have got to realise that the Bill which was read a First time in this House has been torn to shreds. That has been brought about largely through the efforts of men who have had experience of mining and by those who have shown tolerance. Possibly some hon. Members cannot understand why some of us should

speak with heat and feeling on these matters. It is because we have endured the hazards of mining. We have been through them all. We have suffered, and we realise that it is now our duty in this place to try and make things better for those who are following us in this great industry. It may well be that this will be the last mining legislation to go through this House.
I want to make a brief reference to the roadways. Although some of my, colleagues may not agree, I feel that we have made great strides in this respect. The height and width of roadways was not mentioned in the old Acts, but now we have specified a minimum standard of 5 ft. 6 ins. Only those who were members of the Committee will realise the heated discussions we had and the stories that were unfolded to get this concession. I feel, therefore, that our work has been well rewarded. My hon. Friend referred to female labour, and I hope that it may be possible for those dear girls and women to find more salubrious occupations than working at the pit head. I do not think any members of the Committee liked it.
I shall not make any criticisms tonight because I feel proud that I have taken part in this legislation, which I hope will assist in increasing output and in attracting to our industry more people than it has done in the past. It is not our duty to rake up the sordid past, but to look forward to a bright future in the mining industry, and it is incumbent upon all hon. Members of this House to put the industry on a high pedestal and to see that it remains there.

Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVIES)

10.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
I think it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss together these two Orders which amend those at present in force under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. The levies under these two Orders, one for export promotion and the other for scientific research, are raised in part from the processers and in part from the suppliers. In each case they are based on the wool supplied or consumed or the persons employed during a defined six months period.
The object of the two present Orders is twofold. First, it is to vary the proportion of the levy raised respectively from the processers and from the suppliers. Secondly, it is to alter the period to make it correspond with the accounting year of the National Wool Textile Export Corporation in one case and the Wool Textile Research Council in the other.
The object of altering the proportion is this. When the Orders were made originally at the request of the industry it was agreed by the various sections that not more than 20 per cent. of the total proceeds should be derived from the levy on wool supplied. Experience has shown that the Orders, as they stand, have resulted in a larger proportion being raised from the suppliers. The effect of the amendments to these two Orders is to bring about the result originally intended and accepted as fair. Both these Orders have been introduced at the request of the Wool Textile Delegation and both are supported by the National Association of Unions in the Textile Trade.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: These two Orders flow from the original Industrial Organisation Development Act, which was promoted

by the Labour Government in 1947 and, therefore, clearly we can have no objection in principle to Orders of this kind.
When the original Orders were made under the Act we could obviously do no more than seemed to be right in accordance with the estimates we then made. It is clear in the light of experience that the incidence of the levy on the two main groups which are concerned is not fair nor in accordance with the original intentions when the original Order was made. Anything which alters the incidence of a levy is bound to disturb some people, but, by and large, I am quite satisfied that these Order will correct what had become an unfairness and ought to be made.

Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1954 [copy presented 15th June], approved.—[Mr. Henry Strauss.]

WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (U.K. CONTRIBUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Redmayne.]

10.32 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I am raising the question of the contributions we are making from this country to the World Health Organisation, because of what I felt to be unsatisfactory replies which were given in the debate we had in March on the whole problem of world mutual aid, when I took the opportunity of raising the more limited problem of the work which is being done by the Organisation and some of the particular financial difficulties it was facing.
In view of the rather unsatisfactory reply I got then, I put Questions to the Minister of Health to which, again, I felt I received unsatisfactory replies. I then raised the question of why it was that the delegates from this country to the last Congress of the World Health Organisation, held a short time ago in Geneva, should have voted against the full increase in the budget of the Organisation put forward by the Director General.
I do not think that tonight I need argue at all about the value of the Organisation. In this House its work is well known even though, alas, it is not sufficiently well known outside. I think I can perfectly well assume that there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about the enormous contribution this body is making from extraordinarily limited funds. Perhaps it is worth emphasising how very much of the work being done by the World Health Organisation is in our own overseas areas with the full co-operation, I willingly admit, of many other organisations: with the full co-operation, in many cases, of the Colombo Plan organisation, and, in some cases, of the Colonial Office.
It is worth while emphasising that the work being done by the World Health Organisation is making a valuable contribution to our home problems, and reminding as many people as possible that this is a mutual aid scheme. It is not a question of a number of rich countries making contributions to those that are poorly off, although it is true that the main contribution comes from those who are best able to make it, and recipient countries are making out of their meagre resources a much larger contribution than we are. We would accept that as being right. It is part of the aim of the World Health Organisation to ensure the co-operation of the local population in the particular countries in which the particular schemes are being carried out.
Much work is being done in many parts of the world in which large contributions are being made—such as Haiti and elsewhere, where, in addition to making a contribution in their own countries, they are sending people out to help in other countries in spite of the needs of their own areas. Anyone who wants further proof of that has only to read the recent book, "Man Against the Jungle" by Ritchie Calder, which gives a graphic account of the way in which the World Health Organisation and other Specialised Agencies of United Nations are carrying out their work.
I want to emphasise that there is a real danger that the full continuation and development of this vital work of the organisation may be affected by a shortage of funds because of the extreme

irregularity of their payment. As may be known, the Organisation secures its finances from three sources. It has its regular budget, finally approved by, the United Nations Assembly: that is produced by the Director-General of the Organisation, and to that approved budget this country makes its contribution—roughly, about 10 per cent. That contribution falls on the Vote of the Ministry of Health, and at present it is the miserly sum of £350,000. That is all we contribute to the regular budget of the World Health Organisation.
It is true that the organisation also secures funds from the Technical Assistance Board, which was designed at one time to try to co-ordinate the work of the many United Nations Agencies which were to work together—the Food and Agricultural Organisation, U.N.I.C.E:F. for dealing with children, and U.N.E.S.C.O. for work in education. They are tackling a combined job, and there ought to be a co-ordinating body. A further technical assistance programme, out of which it was hoped a good deal of extra money could become available, was developed. Some did become available in the first year of the scheme, but, unhappily, it has been unreliable and last year the World Health Organisation had, on two occasions, to cut down very wisely indeed on the programmes planned for several years in advance.
I ought to impress on the House that this not only causes a great deal of disturbance in the plans of the Organisation, but it breaks down the balance of the work in the countries concerned which involves the whole health operations of those countries or could do. It is a very serious matter indeed when schemes that have been understood to be fully approved have to be postponed for some period of time. This is precisely what happened last year, and I fear that it may be happening again this year, largely due to the complete unreliability of contributions coming through from the Technical Assistance Board.
There is a third small source which has been available in the past, from U.N.T.C.E.F.—the children's fund—which, indeed, last year had to step in and help the World Health Organisation out of its debts, which is something which really should not have happened. Because of the irregularity of the pay


ments and these other difficulties, it was proposed at the annual assembly of the Organisation that its regular budget should be increased, and that it should be increased fairly substantially—by about 20 per cent. Even that is a small sum of money in total when we consider the work that is being done and if we relate it to the expenditure which we are quite willing to approve in this House for much less laudable purposes.
In any case, it was proposed that the budget of the World Health Organisation should be increased to about 10¼ million dollars. As I understand, our own delegates from this country opposed that proposal which was turned down by 28 votes to 22 votes—a small margin—and a compromise figure was agreed on the proposal of this country and a budget of 9¼ million dollars was approved, which was some increase on last year, but still is a miserably small contribution for work of the quality that is being done by the World Health Organisation.
I understand from answers to Questions which I have put down that the reason put forward by the Minister of Health is that the extra funds should be made available from the Technical Assistance Board. That is all very well if, indeed, those funds are going to come forward, but if we are to judge from past experience, we have no reason to expect them to come forward. I think it is intolerable that for a miserably small extra contribution that has been asked, this country should have taken a prominent part in forcing down the figure of the regular budget instead of giving a more secure financial basis than seems likely today.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what sort of guarantee she thinks there is, not only this year but for the future, of the Technical Assistance Board carrying out what we all originally hoped it would be able to do, and make the larger contributions which we all hoped would be possible.
I should like to make this further point. It seems to me that until we in this country and other countries are able to give some greater certainty as to the level of payments over a period of years, it is going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for bodies like the World

Health Organisation—and this applies equally to the other United Nations Agencies—to secure the type of technical skill that they want.
If one thinks in terms of the World Health Organisation, with which I am chiefly concerned, their job is to secure assistance for training people, in countries such as Indonesia and other places in the Far East, and elsewhere, in public hygiene, which is very important indeed, and in the best manner of controlling particular diseases such as malaria, and so forth. A high quality of technical assistance is needed to carry out that work. It may be said that we can get some extremely skilled and very able people, from our universities, teaching hospitals, and elsewhere, to go out for short periods. No doubt that is excellent, in its way, but we find it difficult to get people to take up appointments for any considerable length of time indeed. I do not know whether such appointments can be offered, because there is no guarantee that sufficient funds will be available to enable their work to be carried out.
This is forcing the World Health Organisation to concentrate upon short-term schemes when it would be far more economical to do more work of a long-term character, and to concentrate much more on long-term training of local personnel, which is the main job that has to be carried out. I suggest the hon. Lady should try to persuade her right hon. Friend the Minister to seek Treasury support for the setting up of some form of international Civil Service, which would be able to offer some guarantee of appointments for technical work of this kind. It might be linked with the Over-sea Civil Service which has only recently been inaugurated, since much of this work is in Colonial Territories.
It is desperately important that we should get the full value of this constructive work, and get the right type of person to take on the jobs which are so badly needed in these countries. The temper of the debate we had a little time ago has shown that it is agreed throughout the House that all this good and constructive work is worthy of the best we can do, and it is a shocking thing the relatively small sum of £100,000 is preventing us from giving the guarantees which would enable these world health schemes to be carried out.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I rise to give my warm support to everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). I know that in this case I am not fighting a battle with the Parliamentary Secretary; the person who should be in her place tonight is the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am sure she feels—although she may not be able to express it so openly as we do—the same wish to foster this growing Organisation. If the Chancellor were here I am sure that he would not resent the mild pressure which the hon. Member and myself are now putting upon the Government to liberate more funds for this purpose.
I merely wish to draw attention Lo three points. First, health is the whole basis of the aid which we are bringing to these backward countries. If the people of those countries are not well they can derive no advantage from the other more material and tangible benefits which are being brought to them under the technical aid programme. Secondly, this is a growing Organisation. It is young, but already, during the live or six years of its existence, it has gained momentum and has expanded, as it was intended to do. If, at this moment, contributions are curtailed or even kept only at their original level, that momentum cannot be maintained. It is up to us—a country with tremendous experience in the organisation of international methods of health control—to give the lead which the rest of the world is awaiting, by making a contribution which is in proportion to the growing needs and achievements of this Organisation. Not to do so will merely mean wasting the past efforts we have made.
Finally, I would support what the hon. Gentleman said about making our contribution a firm annual contribution, a sum of money to which the organisers can look forward with certainty, because without that certainty all our efforts will be frustrated. They must have the knowledge that such and such a sum will be forthcoming from the various countries, particularly ours, if there is to be certainty that their work will bear the fruit that it should. So I add my appeal to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite that my hon. Friend, even at third remove,

will do her best to bring about this increase in the contribution we make to the World Health Organisation.

10.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) has raised a matter that commands general support in the House, and I agree with him in what he said about the very great work that the World Health Organisation does not only directly by itself but also through the Technical Assistance Programme in which it participates. I am doubly grateful to him for initiating the debate because it provides an opportunity to clarify the functions and scope of the two very distinct parts of the Organisation's work, and to sort out some of the misapprehensions that have arisen.
The position is complicated by the fact that since 1950 the Organisation has taken on certain additional duties in relation to the expanded Technical Assistance Programme which, hon. Members will remember, was a plan for the economic development of under-developed countries. I would make clear the differentiation between the funds. First, the regular budget of the Organisation is financed by contributions from member States which contribute annually on an internationally agreed scale based on each member country's assessed ability to pay. The Government have regularly paid their assessed contribution of about 11 per cent. The Technical Assistance Programme funds, on the other hand, are contributed on a purely voluntary basis by a number of countries including the United Kingdom. Of the Technical Assistance funds the World Health Organisation draws about 20 per cent.
Difficulties have arisen in that the Organisation and all the Specialised Agencies concerned with the Technical Assistance Programme funds have found that the T.A.P. has fallen very far short of the somewhat over ambitious expectations—and, I should say, unjustifiable expectations in some cases—of the Agencies themselves. They budgeted for money they hoped to receive voluntarily and which they did not get.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The hon. Lady will agree, will she not, that they had every


undertaking that the Technical Assistance Programme funds would be forthcoming?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I would not accept that from the hon. Gentleman.
I want to make clear that the responsibility of my right hon. Friend is limited to the World Health Organisation. The United Kingdom contribution to the Technical Assistance Programme is the responsibility of the Foreign Office. This is a matter that has been very carefully discussed in the Assembly this year. It gave rise to considerable thought and decision. While the functions of the Organisation are described in its constitution in very wide terms it is quite clear that there must be a practical limit. One must accept a dividing line between what are the regular and proper activities of the W.H.O. and what are the activities of the Technical Assistance projects that may overlap into the field of health.
Where technical assistance is given to increase the productivity and the economic well-being of the receiving nation it is not unreasonable that a receiver nation should contribute to the project. It was agreed at the recent Assembly meeting that from the practical point of view the regular activities must be controlled, and that there must be a dividing line between the regular and proper activities of the Organisation and the activities that properly are financed by Technical Assistance funds.
This was endorsed at the recent World Health Assembly, and a resolution adopted recommending that, in future, the Director-General should keep the two programmes separate. In fact, some World Health Organisation money has been spent in financing technical assistance projects. But the establishment of machinery for the prevention of the spread of epidemics and for the organisation of work in its real "health" sense, in this sphere our contribution has not been limited.
Our contribution has been fully met, and when the appropriate increase for World Health Organisation work, amounting to 1 million dollars was put to the Assembly, the United Kingdom delegation supported that increase. That was put forward by the Director-General, and

was supported by Her Majesty's Government's representatives, although the increase was voted against by several member States. In our view, in general, the operational work carried out by the World Health Organisation at the request of member States under the Technical Assistance Programme is to assist in the matter of health problems peculiar to certain countries. It is our view that these matters are more properly dealt with under technical assistance; for example, we have had the successful anti-yaws campaign in Siam, which has gone no small way towards helping the economic well being of that country. Our representatives rightly claim that the budget for that type of work ought properly to be considered as technical assistance, and not as a World Health Organisation programme.
But, since that programme started, there has been a considerable increase in expenditure; in 1948, the programme was for 4¾ milion dollars, and in this last year it had grown to 8½ million dollars, of which we have made our contribution of about 11 per cent. For the 1955 budget, our representative supported the 1 million dollars increase which was put forward as necessary for what I might term purely World Health Organisation activities. Of the remainder of the increase, about 700,000 or 800,000 dollars were due entirely to projects dealing specifically with individual Governments, and the operation of which it was calculated were to be wholly beneficial to those particular areas.
It is our view that those come properly under the heading of technical assistance, and we did not agree that they should be included in the World Health Organisation budget proper. If we accept that any programme of this kind hitherto financed from voluntary funds should be put under funds raised by a fixed levy from member States we believe that the number of claims which would be put forward would be unlimited and that the number of claims put forward by countries wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity for such claims would also be unlimited.
We believe that such schemes of technical assistance must be divided from the work of the World Health Organisation.


We feel that technical assistance should be bound up with the capacity and willingness of member States to make the necessary contributions as they think fit. If those much wider schemes were included in the work of the World Health Organisation, we feel that they would bedevil its work and extend it beyond its proper sphere and probably beyond its capacity.
The World Health Organisation budget has a fixed contribution, constant in proportion to a proper and regular programme. I am happy to give an assurance that, subject to Parliamentary approval and to the exigencies of our financial situation, Her Majesty's Government will continue to support most whole-heartedly the central programme of the World Health Organisation, provided always that the Government of the day continue to be satisfied with the way in which such things are administered.
The last Report of the Technical Assistance Board states frankly that it would like to know what it will receive in a long-term programme, but it recognises that for constitutional reasons—which concern not only this Government but all Governments—it is extremely difficult for Government to make commitments of their nations' finances for many years ahead. With the best will

in the world, they cannot commit themselves beyond a year ahead. The Report states, however, that if the board could at least have a good will statement, some general statement of policy, pledging support, without the Government necessarily committing themselves, it would be helpful. Her Majesty's Government have so far made their contribution to the general programme of all these agencies and will continue to do so.
Perhaps in the last minute of the debate I can deal with the recruitment of experts. My information is different from that of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East in that, as far as I am informed, the experience of the World Health Organisation has not shown that it has encountered insuperable difficulties in recruiting staff. It is true that specialists required, particularly for the technical assistance programmes, have had to be seconded from employment in their nations and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.